This guy is willing to go to the mat with vitriolic lies to defend his company's inferior technology in a world that is moving beyond it. What other qualifications does he need to work at the new Apple?
Why aren't there any smartphone auto-screening apps available? Maybe they'd need a rooted phone to operate, but basically, they could intercept phone calls and let numbers on a whitelist through, auto-hang-up on blacklist numbers, and send greylist numbers to a skill-testing screening question asking them to enter, for example, the sum of 8 and 10 using touch tone digits, to prove that they are actual people. Auto-dialers wouldn't do this and thus, wouldn't bother you. The skill test could be more sophisticated or could even use voice recognition. The calls that don't get through never bother you, except showing up in screener statistics when you want to look at them.
Such stupidity must be some kind of guerilla marketing strategy that Lucasfilm and LEGO are secretly behind to help promote their new product. Straw-man advertising.
in the US more than 50% of people have smartphones... who else is left to buy an iphone 5?
The thing about these devices is that they only last a few years before the battery goes, they become too clunky or their capacity too limited, they become too embarrassing in your bid to keep up with the Jones, and/or you just plain drop and break them. Therefore, every year, one-third of smartphone owners will be buying a new smartphone. That's a pretty big market segment.
That is not how it work is aviation. The rule is you have to prove it is not harmful.
It has been proven. Consider that 90% of flyers have a cell phone and 20% of them on every flight either forget to or refuse to turn off their transmission functions. (It's not like the stewards actually check this.) So, we have millions of experiments every year and not one single adverse effect. I doubt many other flight-safety regulations receive this level of testing.
They essentially rendered a judgement based on nonsense and a complete failure to understand the material.
All juries do this. Laypeople are too incompetent to decide just about anything.
Apple's image is being tarnished through all of this for a wide variety of reasons.
I'd say the biggest threat to Apple isn't image per-se; it's the commoditization of its key profit centers: smartphones and tablets. With Google selling zero-margin products at unbelievable prices, all players will be forced into a zero-margin position, which doesn't bode well for Apple's 44% profit margins. What they need to do is create and (temporarily) dominate a brand new market segment, but I don't know what that could be. Some people think it will be television, but I just don't see why anyone would want to pay $1500 for a $500 TV. That market is commoditized and saturated and what would an Apple TV offer over its current $100 black box?
And you think TVs and cameras aren't already computers whether they run Android or not!? Any complicated device needs a general-purpose processor and an OS to do anything at all, so the only question is which OS to run. If you choose Android, you get a lot of benefits for free, like 700,000 apps for instance. Additionally, it's free and you don't have to write an OS yourself.
Er, the cap is $5000, and the injured party has to prove actual damages.
That's very intriguing. I was worried that the $5000 was statutory like the US $150,000. Suppose that you were found guilty of downloading 100 songs. In the US, that would cost you $15M and in Canada $500k. For someone who doesn't have this kind of money, it makes no difference -- you're bankrupt either way. But when you consider *actual* damages, in both countries you'd be one the hook for about $50, assuming the wholesale price for a digital track from the copyright holder is 50 cents. Even if you downloaded 10,000 songs, it's not worth the cost of suing you to recover $5k. Of course, the US is very messed up in that the $150,000 statutory damage exceeds the constitutional limit of 10x actual damages by 30,000 times.
Slashdot Mirror
What's not to love about a genocidal dictator? He's just misunderstood.
You are assuming that the government can run a company as efficiently as private interests can.
This guy is willing to go to the mat with vitriolic lies to defend his company's inferior technology in a world that is moving beyond it. What other qualifications does he need to work at the new Apple?
Perhaps a degree in Medieval Russian Poetry isn't looking as 'employable' as it used to.
I implement server software and a very important factor to me is how fast the library performs. Does this new one faster than zlib?
in 3... 2... 1...
If you want to use vim, why wouldn't you just use vim?
Why aren't there any smartphone auto-screening apps available? Maybe they'd need a rooted phone to operate, but basically, they could intercept phone calls and let numbers on a whitelist through, auto-hang-up on blacklist numbers, and send greylist numbers to a skill-testing screening question asking them to enter, for example, the sum of 8 and 10 using touch tone digits, to prove that they are actual people. Auto-dialers wouldn't do this and thus, wouldn't bother you. The skill test could be more sophisticated or could even use voice recognition. The calls that don't get through never bother you, except showing up in screener statistics when you want to look at them.
Suddenly ahead of me
Across the mountainside
A gleaming alloy air car
Shoots towards me, two lanes wide
Such stupidity must be some kind of guerilla marketing strategy that Lucasfilm and LEGO are secretly behind to help promote their new product. Straw-man advertising.
The thing about these devices is that they only last a few years before the battery goes, they become too clunky or their capacity too limited, they become too embarrassing in your bid to keep up with the Jones, and/or you just plain drop and break them. Therefore, every year, one-third of smartphone owners will be buying a new smartphone. That's a pretty big market segment.
The Samsung Galaxy S IV isn't far away, either.
So *that's* where Windows really comes from...
It has been proven. Consider that 90% of flyers have a cell phone and 20% of them on every flight either forget to or refuse to turn off their transmission functions. (It's not like the stewards actually check this.) So, we have millions of experiments every year and not one single adverse effect. I doubt many other flight-safety regulations receive this level of testing.
You forgot to count "servers".
Thank goodness they weren't using 64-bit unsigned integers!
Bender, is that you?
All juries do this. Laypeople are too incompetent to decide just about anything.
I'd say the biggest threat to Apple isn't image per-se; it's the commoditization of its key profit centers: smartphones and tablets. With Google selling zero-margin products at unbelievable prices, all players will be forced into a zero-margin position, which doesn't bode well for Apple's 44% profit margins. What they need to do is create and (temporarily) dominate a brand new market segment, but I don't know what that could be. Some people think it will be television, but I just don't see why anyone would want to pay $1500 for a $500 TV. That market is commoditized and saturated and what would an Apple TV offer over its current $100 black box?
"If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution."
But do you individually use public services a THOUSAND times more than a minimum-wager? Or a MILLION times more?
And you think TVs and cameras aren't already computers whether they run Android or not!? Any complicated device needs a general-purpose processor and an OS to do anything at all, so the only question is which OS to run. If you choose Android, you get a lot of benefits for free, like 700,000 apps for instance. Additionally, it's free and you don't have to write an OS yourself.
It's called Gate's Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
I rent in Canada and I pay CA$0.11/kWh all-in with no base cost. That's €0.087. Some months, it's 10 cents. Man, you guys get ripped off!
That's very intriguing. I was worried that the $5000 was statutory like the US $150,000. Suppose that you were found guilty of downloading 100 songs. In the US, that would cost you $15M and in Canada $500k. For someone who doesn't have this kind of money, it makes no difference -- you're bankrupt either way. But when you consider *actual* damages, in both countries you'd be one the hook for about $50, assuming the wholesale price for a digital track from the copyright holder is 50 cents. Even if you downloaded 10,000 songs, it's not worth the cost of suing you to recover $5k. Of course, the US is very messed up in that the $150,000 statutory damage exceeds the constitutional limit of 10x actual damages by 30,000 times.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -- Joseph Stalin