That's my key issue. Price doesn't bother me at all.
But since the app store is binary only and neither user-modifiable nor user-redistributable, this is where GPL code via the App store is in contradiction with the spirit of GPL, i.e., one has to pass on the same rights one received.
Let me be clear here, though the circumstances of my life meant FORTRAN (which was the language taught to the Math/Science/Engineering students of the 70s at the university I attended) and BASIC (which was taught to the Sociology students) were the first languages I learned, and while there are far better beginner languages available today, I had fun and they did teach me some essential truths about programming and the lessons learned underlie the code I write today.
In the 60s, I would accompany my Dad to the big IBM on campus and he would run (and debug) his FORTRAN programs and to keep us kids busy and out of his hair, he taught us a tiny bit of the language and let us go nuts on the card punchers. Even though it was FORTRAN and I knew no more than simple assignment syntax, it was enough to like computers.
In 1971, a high school sophomore, I was fortunate enough to be included in an extra-curricular course in BASIC over teletype to a time-share. Old-school, number each line, single-letter with optional single digit variable names, Goto infested, Else-lacking BASIC. No matter. You think of something, you translate the ideas into code, you test, you refine, and you revel when it all works and input yields output.
Let me be clear here, though the circumstances of my life meant FORTRAN (which was the language taught to the Math/Science/Engineering students of the 70s at the university I attended) and BASIC (which was taught to the Sociology students) were the first languages I learned, and while there are far better beginner languages available today, I had fun and they did teach me some essential truths about programming and the lessons learned underlie the code I write today, so, generics, yay, parallel semantics, yay, tail-recursion, may we have some please.
The question "what language to learn" requires a follow-up question "Why do you want to learn that language?" If it's to get a job, I say, look in the want ads and go for the most requested language skill. But, to learn concepts, I think one should learn C, because speed and space matter, SmallTalk, for state and message passing, and Scheme, for functional paradigms and to imbibe the heady righteousness of no (or very limited) side-effects. These languages are trivially cross-platform and have excellent college-level texts affiliated with them. Take your pick as to which one first.
You may have other languages which you think are better for OOP or FP. I have better languages, i.e., I get more done and/or I don't feel like I'm molasses jogging when employing them. But the languages I mentioned are, as Hollywood puts it, high-concept and the costs and benefits of the concepts are readily grasped. Languages arise as a critique of a language that preceded it. While everything and the kitchen sink languages provide flexibility and commercially mature libraries, their evolution looks to me as exercises in syntactic sugaring and the bolting-on of semantics, occasionally labored, that import a paradigm from another language. I mention this as apology for not replacing my three "essential" languages with either perl or python. Now mind you, the expansion of semantics is all fine and good when one is experienced in the language and its idioms, has a code base to maintain or extend, and needs to get the job done profitably. Well, I guess that's where I am and look at all that java I write, and, so, generics, yay, parallel semantics, love it, tail-recursion in the jvm, could we have that please..
The cliche, though, is true. My java work got better because I've been doing things with C, Lisp, Scheme, and Haskell this decade. When it comes right down to it, the first language doesn't really matter, either the learner has fun with the problem solving and moves on or doesn't and won't. But let's get some fundamental concepts planted quickly.
Any company that employs a public relations company has had the opportunity to pay for astroturfing for years. In fact, I sort of wish we could recognize and reward the companies that don't do it. In Microsoft's case, there are documents from the Iowa case which basically lays out the tactics, like astroturfing, they use to influence the public perception of their technical merits.
Now, over at ZDNet, all the Windows 7 articles are accompanied by legions of talk backs wherein the writer relates how flawlessly the beta and RC of Win7 have operated. Then, the weekend that the Wall Street Journal reports Jobs' liver transplant, Dan "Fake Steve Jobs" Lyons makes a blog post wherein he describes his frustration in trying to write an article in Word on Win7 beta while it kept crashing. He had to go to his Plan B, write it on his Mac, and he excoriated Microsoft for the quality of its software. His commenters took issue with him critiquing a company for beta software, which is a fair point. But, in one place, dozens of testimonials that they are testing it and there's never a cough in the carload and it's ready to ship now, and at another place, for an arbitrary user, it fails when he needs it to get his job done. It's possible that that's just the way it broke. I think it's more probable that some of the "flawless" posts are pr product.
Any one else concerned that the new school - unless it is teaching python to really teach about lambda - is ignoring functional programming techniques?
Unless I'm misunderstanding him, "Oracle" seems pretty vendor/product specific to me as opposed to learning SQL and general concepts in database administration.
Head First SQL is good. It teaches SQL which is essentially the lingua franca of modern day rdbms. You may be put off by the illustrations and the seemingly non-techie approach, but it does a good job in teaching so you learn it. Download or bookmark the postgresql documentation from www.postgresql.org as an adjunct.
Also, if you haven't, you may want to consider using a different programming language. For instance ruby and java have frameworks, such as ActiveRecord and Hibernate, which free you from a lot of plumbing code. I'm sure other languages have their Object-Relational tools all ready to roll as well.
Apple's case against PsyStar isn't about the way Psystar used deep voodoo to get boxed OS X onto their systems. It's that Apple's terms of sale, as outlined in the EULA, do not allow for its use in the manner Psystar wishes, nay, have built their business model around. Psystar disagrees and off to court every one goes.
Your retail or upgrade Snow Leopard won't do a thing for you if you have a PowerPC processor. That's a technical issue. Apple will not release builds for that architecture.
There were a few months where Intel Macs were available in advance of Leopard. Any of those people who did not upgrade to Leopard, and saved their $129, will have to pay $129 to upgrade to Snow Leopard. So they saved $29 for the delay. They could save $158 by staying on Tiger.
The box sets are complete. You may install from scratch without providing any details about prior operating systems installed. Since operating systems prior to Tiger could not be installed on Intel systems, as a practical matter, there are two types of upgrades that may occur this go around. It has been Apple's policy that every boxed upgrade will install over any prior version. Of course, that may change next go round.
I am intrigued, as an upgrade eligible Mac user, how adamantly they will enforce the $29/$129 pricing. I'm wondering if to get $29 Snow Leopard there has to be some mechanism whereby you identify the systems and get a coupon from Apple online which may be used at the Apple store or for direct download. It may be only direct download and Software Update, which already knows the version of the installed os, is involved. Maybe there will be four SKUs on the shelf in September: Upgrade, Upgrade Family, Snow Leopard, Snow Leopard Family, instead of the two, but this seems like a waste of paper and materials.
Bureaucracies and the such will get upset over what gets them upset, usually not playing ball with the bureaucracies.
I think the spirit of the law is that a company should tell its owners and possible owners who's running it for them. Apple said Jobs would not be running the company for the next few months, explained who would be, and people bought and sold their stock accordingly. If the six months were to recuperate, undergo a procedure because he had life-threatening health issues, or to practice the origami which will be central to his post-Apple plans, that's beside the point.
How many times do we get "spend more time with the family" for the public whitewash of the private, confidential reasons?
Let's see. NY Post = NewsCorp, Hulu; Google = Newspaper-killer who should pay to link news articles, YouTube. MySpace fits in the mix somehow (NewsCorp owned).
It was only nominally about the viewers. The converter box program was so stations and advertisers wouldn't suddenly see a huge drop in viewership numbers, impacting revenues since advertising is essentially charged on dollars per thousand viewers. As the whole DTV thing was an arbitrary government mandate to force an incompatible technology that the market was greeting with indifference, you best be sure that the lobbyists were there saying there had to be some return for the imposed cost. So, the givebacks were multiple channels which could be used for alternate programming (or paid services, ka-ching) and government cooperation in transitioning the audience. Throw in 9/11, as the analog spectrum will be partly sold and partly reserved for emergency services, and, mmmmm, can you smell what the FCC was cooking?
I think this is a sensible idea - it is software as is any process where a program assesses a situation, so it shouldn't be patentable in my opinion - and I hope that this is being patented defensively and will be implemented widely.
I think the telcos don't believe that brand loyalty is really achievable, so they won't spend a penny on it. Contract ended, fine, same rates, more profit for us, and any way if you didn't leave you will soon when you need a new phone.
Perhaps I'm naive, but when you become affiliated with a brand-religious RDF clientele such as the Apple folks I think you have to step up in some way. Maybe the costs of delivering insanely great is exorbitant, but I don't see as how cold fish slaps would be a particularly effective Plan B.
Maybe it's not the contract, per se, but this being the third leg of the AT&T stool being pulled out from underneath yesterday. iPhone 3GS will have MMS, AT&T will be joining that party sometime later this summer. iPhone 3GS will offering bluetooth/cable tethering! A graphic of committed partners hits the screen, sardonic laughter fills the hall as everyone notices AT&T is missing and Scott Forstall moves on. New features / rectified deficiencies at a GREAT price. Well, now we know the rest of the story.
And it's not as though AT&T has a stellar reputation for service. I have a Summer '07 iPhone which uses Edge. Last January for a week or so and last month for 19 days (!) no Edge. No explanation. No apology. No credit on my data charge.
I like my iPhone. The iPhone 3GS is better. In mid-July, my contract ends, so I gather I can get the best pricing. I have no reason to be really upset at this. Yet, I'm right at the edge of going with another phone. Even if people vote phone over carrier. Even if enough new people come into the tent that people like me won't be missed, I suspect AT&T is setting themselves up for a massive migration when the five year exclusivity deal is up. Apple comes out with a tablet-y thing that includes telephony without AT&T exclusivity and that kills the iPhone.
Plus, the publishers will sell, not the books, but the licenses, which means re-purchase every two or three years, on the publishers' schedule and not the district's. No money? No books and no just getting by one more year with last year's texts.
I'd also worry about the costs of the reading appliances. Some will wear out. Some will be sold black market. Some will have soft drinks spilled on them. I hope the solution isn't that all reading is done strictly in the classroom.
With all due respect, it's not payment for performance. It's payment for making money from your composition(s) by selling food, beer, etc., to the listeners and dancers.
Good point about trust. There's a mechanism for mitigating the risks of trust, and that is a contract. Currently we have Terms of Service which are all one way, i.e., the service provider promises nothing and imposes rules for usage which they can change with minimal notice. Contrast that with my electricity provider: I pay for use, there are occasional outages (with no reimbursement for consequential damages), and there are no rules as to how I may use the electricity once I plug in.
While software freedoms don't quite fit here, in my opinion, there's a need to address services and make them more equitable with a consumer bill of rights and/or modifications to the commercial codes.
I've been thinking about this ad the last few days. First of all, it was essentially scripted. There is absolutely no point in going to the Apple Store first when one is looking for a 17" $1000 or below laptop. She could have checked the Apple website; shoot, she could have looked at the Apple display in the Best Buy. She could have checked craigslist or ebay for a used one, though used Apples aren't necessarily cheap either.
When Microsoft suggests that it is the OS of budget computing, well, that's a tad backhanded and self-inflicted, too. Argue as you will over the merits of Windows, there is no denying that no matter what level of system you build, you can save money by putting Linux on it. Microsoft skates here because they keep the sales channels in line and there's no hardware manufacturer who has really thrown in their lot with Linux and created a user experience that was clearly differentiated from the Windows experience the way Apple did with MacOS first and NeXT/BSD later. If someone did, that would be the winner on power and value for low cost.
It also occurs to me that if every manufacturer's Windows pc was less expensive than the Apple in its class, then wouldn't that suggest there was not an Apple tax, but a Windows discount? The more I thought about it, the more I think we may state a law. As long as Microsoft allows multiple manufacturers to assemble Windows pc, there will always be at least one brand and model that is cheaper than the Apple in its class, otherwise the price-sensitive will choose a Mac.
Think of it this way, if Microsoft could get $500 for its logo, they'd do it. Any company would. You'd do it. You'd be nuts not too. Small margins, high volumes is Plan C.
There are other scenarios besides the executive shuffle. There's a first look deal in place and so to get some value, the network greenlights a pilot. It's good in that it's better than the others, but no one at the network thinks it's that good. They buy 6 episodes and put it on Friday. If it gets some audience, they buy six more and maybe order the back 9 (an option more likely if the licensing fee doesn't increase and/or the production is by the studio that owns the network.) If the show really does attract a significant audience (hard because the hip people are not watching network tv on Friday night) it gets a spot next to American Idol or 24. If it doesn't get any audience, off it goes and next show up. Some shows get air commitments nine months in advance; any new show approved to air first is likely just a place holder.
Here's a fun one, network doesn't really like the concept, but since the producer has a name, programs the show for a minimal, unpublicized run, on Friday, which keeps it away from any other networks. Show fails in time spot and that means the producer cannot sell the concept or variations elsewhere around town. Advertising revenues for the six runs (and maybe 3 reruns) exceed the costs of pilot production and licensing, so the network books a profit.
Regarding your executive scenario, the change was made because the person next up the ladder had to make a change otherwise they were going to get fired. When being interviewed you were asked what did Roberta, your predecessor, do wrong. It may very well be that you got the interview because you and her superior have been having conversations about her "incompetence" over your last dozen lunches. Do you think, were you to get the job, you're ever going to start with a cheery "Hey, my mistake, this is a great schedule, let's make it work?"
Somewhere in the last twenty years? In 1989 I had a shelf of over 20 hours of recorded material that had been self-demoed or recorded in real studios using a click-track. And using a click track wasn't news then, or when I started recording my bands and me five years earlier. On a few recordings I gave myself a click when I just playing an acoustic guitar. In fact, come to think of it, about twenty years ago, I got to hang out offstage at a performance of a big name group with hits and the drummer was being fed a click track; I can't imagine they were the first.
Here's why we did it:
A good drummer uses the click as a base point and swings and phrases in between the beats. (We typically used a drum machine cow bell giving quarter notes and an accent on the one. There's a lot of room for feel in between the quarter notes. The whole band got the click. If one heard the cowbell, the band had slowed down or sped up.)
We were young and not impervious to having one dynamic, louder, which resulted in speeding up. If we capture a good drum recording that is more or less on the click, the rest can be fixed in overdubs. You could not punch in a drum part. (One sign that we got better as musicians, more of the scratch track could be kept.)
If one sets the tempo, one can figure out delay settings that stay on the beat.
Using the drum machine to lay down a MIDI clock stripe at the same time as it was pumping out the click meant it was a lot easier to add other instruments played via MIDI. This allows parts that can be worked out off the clock (saving money is gooooood). These parts can also be auto-performed at mixdown, which means a track or two of tape is free for other purposes.
Nowadays, parts are sampled, reassembled and layered in order to create a recording. This started about twenty years ago and is a heck of a lot easier with recording to hard drive techniques. Which brings us to another point: multi-tracking and now digital recording techniques have resulted in providing the artist and producer more time before which they have to make final choices. Yes, it's another double-edged sword, but it's human nature to keep options open as long as possible. Honestly, the track is forever, so if you can afford it, why not use the studio to explore what will showcase a good performance?
Is this one of those instances when the lay discover the technical (craft) requirements of creating art? I cannot imagine any one getting worked up about this over some sort of purity of art issue. Maybe the news is this person is proud of his algorithm for statistical analysis of tempo changes in a song. Fair enough. That is cool. Back to art and craft, since we seem to be having a discussion on how the click track ruined pop music, for a percussionist, in all but a few pop genres, the job is keeping the tempo steady and to anchor the groove so as to facilitate the fabrication of a professional sounding track. It's just like acting in the movies, sure there's the obvious, i.e., become a character and project emotion, and there's the click-track, which is you hit your mark so that the pre-set lighting and camera focus capture the art.
I don't know. At the time, I was fairly sure that the shareholders were behind management. You also have to figure that an investor with tech stocks probably already held as much Microsoft as they wanted. (I forget, was the offer strictly cash or cash and stock).
Meanwhile, frankly, I thought Microsoft got lucky that the deal fell through. They would have gone into debt for the privilege of overpaying for Yahoo, and all because of Ballmer's obsession with search. I was noticing today that Microsoft's stock has had a consistent slope downward since the deal, 13 months ago. How does Ballmer keep his job?
Who with any perceptive acuity and fundamental understanding of economics thought that everyone would pay more to continue to see free television? Especially when the recession train was in sight?
It has to do with accounting decisions. Since the company ran a profit, then one could make it look like Vista became profitable after release. For instance, someone buys a license and downgrades to XP. Post as income for Vista instead of XP?
But, look at the pre-release history. Years late. Features, under development, dropped. That had to run up a big deficit. After release, resistance from the corporate sector which had to depress sales. Does one charge the continuing attorney costs for the "Vista Capable" litigation against the account?
What about indirect costs? Did Vista's lateness lower the stock price? I mention because I recall a lot of talk among the financial analysts in 2006 about whether Microsoft could ship products.
So has it broken even yet? Will it break even before we see Windows 7? We probably will never know. But it certainly emerged at RTM in a deeper hole than other Microsoft operating systems.
Slashdot Mirror
That's my key issue. Price doesn't bother me at all.
But since the app store is binary only and neither user-modifiable nor user-redistributable, this is where GPL code via the App store is in contradiction with the spirit of GPL, i.e., one has to pass on the same rights one received.
My apologies, it did need one more preview pass.
In the 60s, I would accompany my Dad to the big IBM on campus and he would run (and debug) his FORTRAN programs and to keep us kids busy and out of his hair, he taught us a tiny bit of the language and let us go nuts on the card punchers. Even though it was FORTRAN and I knew no more than simple assignment syntax, it was enough to like computers.
In 1971, a high school sophomore, I was fortunate enough to be included in an extra-curricular course in BASIC over teletype to a time-share. Old-school, number each line, single-letter with optional single digit variable names, Goto infested, Else-lacking BASIC. No matter. You think of something, you translate the ideas into code, you test, you refine, and you revel when it all works and input yields output.
Let me be clear here, though the circumstances of my life meant FORTRAN (which was the language taught to the Math/Science/Engineering students of the 70s at the university I attended) and BASIC (which was taught to the Sociology students) were the first languages I learned, and while there are far better beginner languages available today, I had fun and they did teach me some essential truths about programming and the lessons learned underlie the code I write today, so, generics, yay, parallel semantics, yay, tail-recursion, may we have some please.
The question "what language to learn" requires a follow-up question "Why do you want to learn that language?" If it's to get a job, I say, look in the want ads and go for the most requested language skill. But, to learn concepts, I think one should learn C, because speed and space matter, SmallTalk, for state and message passing, and Scheme, for functional paradigms and to imbibe the heady righteousness of no (or very limited) side-effects. These languages are trivially cross-platform and have excellent college-level texts affiliated with them. Take your pick as to which one first.
You may have other languages which you think are better for OOP or FP. I have better languages, i.e., I get more done and/or I don't feel like I'm molasses jogging when employing them. But the languages I mentioned are, as Hollywood puts it, high-concept and the costs and benefits of the concepts are readily grasped. Languages arise as a critique of a language that preceded it. While everything and the kitchen sink languages provide flexibility and commercially mature libraries, their evolution looks to me as exercises in syntactic sugaring and the bolting-on of semantics, occasionally labored, that import a paradigm from another language. I mention this as apology for not replacing my three "essential" languages with either perl or python. Now mind you, the expansion of semantics is all fine and good when one is experienced in the language and its idioms, has a code base to maintain or extend, and needs to get the job done profitably. Well, I guess that's where I am and look at all that java I write, and, so, generics, yay, parallel semantics, love it, tail-recursion in the jvm, could we have that please..
The cliche, though, is true. My java work got better because I've been doing things with C, Lisp, Scheme, and Haskell this decade. When it comes right down to it, the first language doesn't really matter, either the learner has fun with the problem solving and moves on or doesn't and won't. But let's get some fundamental concepts planted quickly.
Any company that employs a public relations company has had the opportunity to pay for astroturfing for years. In fact, I sort of wish we could recognize and reward the companies that don't do it. In Microsoft's case, there are documents from the Iowa case which basically lays out the tactics, like astroturfing, they use to influence the public perception of their technical merits.
Now, over at ZDNet, all the Windows 7 articles are accompanied by legions of talk backs wherein the writer relates how flawlessly the beta and RC of Win7 have operated. Then, the weekend that the Wall Street Journal reports Jobs' liver transplant, Dan "Fake Steve Jobs" Lyons makes a blog post wherein he describes his frustration in trying to write an article in Word on Win7 beta while it kept crashing. He had to go to his Plan B, write it on his Mac, and he excoriated Microsoft for the quality of its software. His commenters took issue with him critiquing a company for beta software, which is a fair point. But, in one place, dozens of testimonials that they are testing it and there's never a cough in the carload and it's ready to ship now, and at another place, for an arbitrary user, it fails when he needs it to get his job done. It's possible that that's just the way it broke. I think it's more probable that some of the "flawless" posts are pr product.
Any one else concerned that the new school - unless it is teaching python to really teach about lambda - is ignoring functional programming techniques?
Unless I'm misunderstanding him, "Oracle" seems pretty vendor/product specific to me as opposed to learning SQL and general concepts in database administration.
Head First SQL is good. It teaches SQL which is essentially the lingua franca of modern day rdbms. You may be put off by the illustrations and the seemingly non-techie approach, but it does a good job in teaching so you learn it. Download or bookmark the postgresql documentation from www.postgresql.org as an adjunct.
Also, if you haven't, you may want to consider using a different programming language. For instance ruby and java have frameworks, such as ActiveRecord and Hibernate, which free you from a lot of plumbing code. I'm sure other languages have their Object-Relational tools all ready to roll as well.
Apple's case against PsyStar isn't about the way Psystar used deep voodoo to get boxed OS X onto their systems. It's that Apple's terms of sale, as outlined in the EULA, do not allow for its use in the manner Psystar wishes, nay, have built their business model around. Psystar disagrees and off to court every one goes.
Your retail or upgrade Snow Leopard won't do a thing for you if you have a PowerPC processor. That's a technical issue. Apple will not release builds for that architecture.
There were a few months where Intel Macs were available in advance of Leopard. Any of those people who did not upgrade to Leopard, and saved their $129, will have to pay $129 to upgrade to Snow Leopard. So they saved $29 for the delay. They could save $158 by staying on Tiger.
The box sets are complete. You may install from scratch without providing any details about prior operating systems installed. Since operating systems prior to Tiger could not be installed on Intel systems, as a practical matter, there are two types of upgrades that may occur this go around. It has been Apple's policy that every boxed upgrade will install over any prior version. Of course, that may change next go round.
I am intrigued, as an upgrade eligible Mac user, how adamantly they will enforce the $29/$129 pricing. I'm wondering if to get $29 Snow Leopard there has to be some mechanism whereby you identify the systems and get a coupon from Apple online which may be used at the Apple store or for direct download. It may be only direct download and Software Update, which already knows the version of the installed os, is involved. Maybe there will be four SKUs on the shelf in September: Upgrade, Upgrade Family, Snow Leopard, Snow Leopard Family, instead of the two, but this seems like a waste of paper and materials.
Bureaucracies and the such will get upset over what gets them upset, usually not playing ball with the bureaucracies.
I think the spirit of the law is that a company should tell its owners and possible owners who's running it for them. Apple said Jobs would not be running the company for the next few months, explained who would be, and people bought and sold their stock accordingly. If the six months were to recuperate, undergo a procedure because he had life-threatening health issues, or to practice the origami which will be central to his post-Apple plans, that's beside the point.
How many times do we get "spend more time with the family" for the public whitewash of the private, confidential reasons?
Let's see. NY Post = NewsCorp, Hulu; Google = Newspaper-killer who should pay to link news articles, YouTube. MySpace fits in the mix somehow (NewsCorp owned).
It was only nominally about the viewers. The converter box program was so stations and advertisers wouldn't suddenly see a huge drop in viewership numbers, impacting revenues since advertising is essentially charged on dollars per thousand viewers. As the whole DTV thing was an arbitrary government mandate to force an incompatible technology that the market was greeting with indifference, you best be sure that the lobbyists were there saying there had to be some return for the imposed cost. So, the givebacks were multiple channels which could be used for alternate programming (or paid services, ka-ching) and government cooperation in transitioning the audience. Throw in 9/11, as the analog spectrum will be partly sold and partly reserved for emergency services, and, mmmmm, can you smell what the FCC was cooking?
I did, I thought it stunk, so I gave up the tv.
I think this is a sensible idea - it is software as is any process where a program assesses a situation, so it shouldn't be patentable in my opinion - and I hope that this is being patented defensively and will be implemented widely.
I think the telcos don't believe that brand loyalty is really achievable, so they won't spend a penny on it. Contract ended, fine, same rates, more profit for us, and any way if you didn't leave you will soon when you need a new phone.
Perhaps I'm naive, but when you become affiliated with a brand-religious RDF clientele such as the Apple folks I think you have to step up in some way. Maybe the costs of delivering insanely great is exorbitant, but I don't see as how cold fish slaps would be a particularly effective Plan B.
Maybe it's not the contract, per se, but this being the third leg of the AT&T stool being pulled out from underneath yesterday. iPhone 3GS will have MMS, AT&T will be joining that party sometime later this summer. iPhone 3GS will offering bluetooth/cable tethering! A graphic of committed partners hits the screen, sardonic laughter fills the hall as everyone notices AT&T is missing and Scott Forstall moves on. New features / rectified deficiencies at a GREAT price. Well, now we know the rest of the story.
And it's not as though AT&T has a stellar reputation for service. I have a Summer '07 iPhone which uses Edge. Last January for a week or so and last month for 19 days (!) no Edge. No explanation. No apology. No credit on my data charge.
I like my iPhone. The iPhone 3GS is better. In mid-July, my contract ends, so I gather I can get the best pricing. I have no reason to be really upset at this. Yet, I'm right at the edge of going with another phone. Even if people vote phone over carrier. Even if enough new people come into the tent that people like me won't be missed, I suspect AT&T is setting themselves up for a massive migration when the five year exclusivity deal is up. Apple comes out with a tablet-y thing that includes telephony without AT&T exclusivity and that kills the iPhone.
Plus, the publishers will sell, not the books, but the licenses, which means re-purchase every two or three years, on the publishers' schedule and not the district's. No money? No books and no just getting by one more year with last year's texts.
I'd also worry about the costs of the reading appliances. Some will wear out. Some will be sold black market. Some will have soft drinks spilled on them. I hope the solution isn't that all reading is done strictly in the classroom.
Checked the address: Alhambra!
So, no, not me. Let me know if there's a car pool though.
Who opens a retail store on a Monday?
Let's have a dramatic reenactment, shall we?
Hi, Mike Sharp here. We've got a site going where we will talk about the benefits of running XP on your devices. Can we get you to link to it?
The ancient operating system you keep trying to kill?
Yeah, (ha ha), exactly.
I haven't heard the magic words....
Please?
No, the other magic words
Oh, your next 15,000 OEM licenses are essentially free.
There we go!
And... scene.
With all due respect, it's not payment for performance. It's payment for making money from your composition(s) by selling food, beer, etc., to the listeners and dancers.
Real concurrency on the jvm: try clojure
Good point about trust. There's a mechanism for mitigating the risks of trust, and that is a contract. Currently we have Terms of Service which are all one way, i.e., the service provider promises nothing and imposes rules for usage which they can change with minimal notice. Contrast that with my electricity provider: I pay for use, there are occasional outages (with no reimbursement for consequential damages), and there are no rules as to how I may use the electricity once I plug in.
While software freedoms don't quite fit here, in my opinion, there's a need to address services and make them more equitable with a consumer bill of rights and/or modifications to the commercial codes.
I've been thinking about this ad the last few days. First of all, it was essentially scripted. There is absolutely no point in going to the Apple Store first when one is looking for a 17" $1000 or below laptop. She could have checked the Apple website; shoot, she could have looked at the Apple display in the Best Buy. She could have checked craigslist or ebay for a used one, though used Apples aren't necessarily cheap either.
When Microsoft suggests that it is the OS of budget computing, well, that's a tad backhanded and self-inflicted, too. Argue as you will over the merits of Windows, there is no denying that no matter what level of system you build, you can save money by putting Linux on it. Microsoft skates here because they keep the sales channels in line and there's no hardware manufacturer who has really thrown in their lot with Linux and created a user experience that was clearly differentiated from the Windows experience the way Apple did with MacOS first and NeXT/BSD later. If someone did, that would be the winner on power and value for low cost.
It also occurs to me that if every manufacturer's Windows pc was less expensive than the Apple in its class, then wouldn't that suggest there was not an Apple tax, but a Windows discount? The more I thought about it, the more I think we may state a law. As long as Microsoft allows multiple manufacturers to assemble Windows pc, there will always be at least one brand and model that is cheaper than the Apple in its class, otherwise the price-sensitive will choose a Mac.
Think of it this way, if Microsoft could get $500 for its logo, they'd do it. Any company would. You'd do it. You'd be nuts not too. Small margins, high volumes is Plan C.
There are other scenarios besides the executive shuffle. There's a first look deal in place and so to get some value, the network greenlights a pilot. It's good in that it's better than the others, but no one at the network thinks it's that good. They buy 6 episodes and put it on Friday. If it gets some audience, they buy six more and maybe order the back 9 (an option more likely if the licensing fee doesn't increase and/or the production is by the studio that owns the network.) If the show really does attract a significant audience (hard because the hip people are not watching network tv on Friday night) it gets a spot next to American Idol or 24. If it doesn't get any audience, off it goes and next show up. Some shows get air commitments nine months in advance; any new show approved to air first is likely just a place holder.
Here's a fun one, network doesn't really like the concept, but since the producer has a name, programs the show for a minimal, unpublicized run, on Friday, which keeps it away from any other networks. Show fails in time spot and that means the producer cannot sell the concept or variations elsewhere around town. Advertising revenues for the six runs (and maybe 3 reruns) exceed the costs of pilot production and licensing, so the network books a profit.
Regarding your executive scenario, the change was made because the person next up the ladder had to make a change otherwise they were going to get fired. When being interviewed you were asked what did Roberta, your predecessor, do wrong. It may very well be that you got the interview because you and her superior have been having conversations about her "incompetence" over your last dozen lunches. Do you think, were you to get the job, you're ever going to start with a cheery "Hey, my mistake, this is a great schedule, let's make it work?"
Somewhere in the last twenty years? In 1989 I had a shelf of over 20 hours of recorded material that had been self-demoed or recorded in real studios using a click-track. And using a click track wasn't news then, or when I started recording my bands and me five years earlier. On a few recordings I gave myself a click when I just playing an acoustic guitar. In fact, come to think of it, about twenty years ago, I got to hang out offstage at a performance of a big name group with hits and the drummer was being fed a click track; I can't imagine they were the first.
Here's why we did it:
Nowadays, parts are sampled, reassembled and layered in order to create a recording. This started about twenty years ago and is a heck of a lot easier with recording to hard drive techniques. Which brings us to another point: multi-tracking and now digital recording techniques have resulted in providing the artist and producer more time before which they have to make final choices. Yes, it's another double-edged sword, but it's human nature to keep options open as long as possible. Honestly, the track is forever, so if you can afford it, why not use the studio to explore what will showcase a good performance?
Is this one of those instances when the lay discover the technical (craft) requirements of creating art? I cannot imagine any one getting worked up about this over some sort of purity of art issue. Maybe the news is this person is proud of his algorithm for statistical analysis of tempo changes in a song. Fair enough. That is cool. Back to art and craft, since we seem to be having a discussion on how the click track ruined pop music, for a percussionist, in all but a few pop genres, the job is keeping the tempo steady and to anchor the groove so as to facilitate the fabrication of a professional sounding track. It's just like acting in the movies, sure there's the obvious, i.e., become a character and project emotion, and there's the click-track, which is you hit your mark so that the pre-set lighting and camera focus capture the art.
I don't know. At the time, I was fairly sure that the shareholders were behind management. You also have to figure that an investor with tech stocks probably already held as much Microsoft as they wanted. (I forget, was the offer strictly cash or cash and stock).
Meanwhile, frankly, I thought Microsoft got lucky that the deal fell through. They would have gone into debt for the privilege of overpaying for Yahoo, and all because of Ballmer's obsession with search. I was noticing today that Microsoft's stock has had a consistent slope downward since the deal, 13 months ago. How does Ballmer keep his job?
Who with any perceptive acuity and fundamental understanding of economics thought that everyone would pay more to continue to see free television? Especially when the recession train was in sight?
The Congress and FCC? Well, there you go.
It has to do with accounting decisions. Since the company ran a profit, then one could make it look like Vista became profitable after release. For instance, someone buys a license and downgrades to XP. Post as income for Vista instead of XP?
But, look at the pre-release history. Years late. Features, under development, dropped. That had to run up a big deficit. After release, resistance from the corporate sector which had to depress sales. Does one charge the continuing attorney costs for the "Vista Capable" litigation against the account?
What about indirect costs? Did Vista's lateness lower the stock price? I mention because I recall a lot of talk among the financial analysts in 2006 about whether Microsoft could ship products.
So has it broken even yet? Will it break even before we see Windows 7? We probably will never know. But it certainly emerged at RTM in a deeper hole than other Microsoft operating systems.