From what I've read and seen, iPhones have similar or greater performance compared with Androids that are about as expensive. I don't know how that compares in raw computrons, and I really don't care. If Apple has half the CPU power and twice the efficiency, it all balances out.
For their laptops and desktops, this is true. Those things have other features which some people like, and actually matching an Apple computer feature for feature is going to mean roughly equivalent cost. Some people care about these things, but the average geek doesn't (aside from being able to run a Unix).
Seems reasonable to me, but don't forget what you mean to the company. If you're paying for good treatment, make sure you get it, or go elsewhere.
That being said, you're in a much stronger position with a company when you actually give them money directly rather than having them get revenue by monetizing you.
Apple wants me to keep buying Apple stuff, because that's how they make most of their money. It is in their best interest to make me not regret buying an Apple product. In the short run, they could cash in. In the long run, it could easily lose money. Apple plans for the long run, with customers they try to make happy.
Of course, a publicly held company can change at any time, but it seems unlikely that Apple will. Nobody's got the money for a hostile takeover.
We all had our desk phones taken away, and software phones substituted. I figure there's no more than a 50% chance that I'll be able to answer the thing, and accessing stored messages requires some sort of code I don't remember ever being given.
Not just three people. There are 168 hours in a week, and standard practice is 40 working hours, except for things like holidays and vacations and sick time. I'd figure five people is the minimum to cover something 24/7.
The other change is how fast the change is occurring. Retraining also does no good if the jobs you're being trained for go away before you've finished your training. It does limited good if it has to be done several times in a career.
Not everyone I know who's busting their ass can afford a house or fancy restaurants except once in a while, and they're limited as to the "rest of the world" they can afford to vacation in. Ass-busting is by no means a guarantee of success.
And the Assange fanbois are continuing with the unfounded FUD. I'm going with the evidence I've been able to find, and my deductions from that. In my opinion, Assange raped one or two women in Sweden, fled the accusation, fought extradition in the UK (which is reasonable), and when he lost fled to the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid facing justice in Sweden. Somewhere along the line he started making crap up about being afraid to come out, lest he be sent to the US. I haven't seen good evidence that the US wanted him back then, let alone now.
Time spent in the embassy does not count as time served in prison, so at this point he may just as well wait until the statute of limitations on his rape accusation expires in a couple of years.
From what I've gathered, they withdrew the request because Assange wasn't going to be available, and they can reinstate the main charge whenever they like. The statute of limitations has passed on the lesser charges.
I won't say you're making crap up. I will say that Assange is making crap up and you're falling for it. Nobody's supplied any reasonable evidence that the US wants him. If we did, we'd have filed an extradition request with the UK when Assange first arrived there, as the UK is known for handing people over to the US.
Assange is alleged to have committed rape in Sweden. (The evidence I've got suggests he actually did rape at least one woman, but that's obviously not definitive.) That's not non-violent. Sweden had to make the case that he was wanted for what would be a serious crime under UK law, or the extradition request would have been invalid. The UK courts considered that carefully, and agreed with Sweden.
Hence, Assange is not a non-violent criminal.
Also, this is an abuse of diplomatic rules. Diplomacy is not intended to shelter fugitives from justice. There is no good evidence that the US even wants Assange, so it comes down to Ecuador making crap up to make it look all legal.
Do you have any support for that belief? I haven't found any. I haven't seen evidence that the US wants him. Particularly now, he's mostly irrelevant and not worth the fuss extraordinary rendition would cause.
Think back to when Assange was relevant. He voluntarily moved to Sweden, and when he was wanted for sex crimes voluntarily went to Britain. This suggests that he felt safe in both countries, even though the UK is known for handing people over to the US.
Then, Sweden sent a valid extradition request to the UK, and Assange started making noises about how he'd be in danger in Sweden because the US would grab him. The British courts examined the case in detail and found there was no reason not to extradite him, so he fled to the Ecuadorian embassy.
I've seen zero evidence that the US actually wants him. There have been government officials who have disliked him, but that's not the same thing.
"Terrible sites", from a security point of view, nowadays include any sites with third-party advertisements. Pornhub might well be safer than the New York Times nowadays.
The early IBM 360 culture was very similar in principle. People got their IBM 360s and 370s and normally got the suitable OS. It wasn't until later that IBM had to unbundle hardware and software, when companies like Amdahl started producing compatible hardware. People wrote software and shared it. When I was working on a 370 in the mid-70s, we used HASP as a spooling program, so we could (gasp) read in an entire card deck and have the program read the disk file, so we didn't have to keep a reader dedicated to a program. That was functionally open source software, and anyone who could afford a computer could jump in.
The big difference here is that computers don't cost nearly as much. At the job I had then, I was told that whether to add a megabyte of memory to a computer was a VP-level decision, and done after a lot of study. It wasn't that many decades later that a megabyte became cheap, and then too small a unit to bother with.
Let's be charitable. Acupuncture, properly done, has few or no adverse effects. The only way it's likely to be harmful is if someone relies on it instead of getting effective medical treatment. You can't say nearly the same about anti-vaxx movements.
Which is consistent with the placebo effect, FWIW. However, acupuncture is done by putting needles into significant points. For a double-blind study, you teach someone how to insert needles, acupuncture-style, without knowing more about it. You tell that person to insert needles at specific points. Some of these are traditional acupuncture points for the desired effect and some aren't. That eliminates cues to the patient. The blind scoring of results is normal.
China has about 2 billion inhabitants, India is now over a billion,.thailand is close to 100million.... should Ii continue?
How many of these use acupuncture? (I really don't know.)
There are plenty of scientific studies that show acupuncture works. Many of them are over 3000 years old, so what is your point?
The Wikipedia article gives references to studies in which acupuncture is not found to be more effective than putting needles in random places, and it isn't clear that random needling is better than placebo. Pain control is difficult to evaluate, since pain is self-reported, and it's not possible to do a blind test with the control group not being poked and the experimental group getting acupuncture.
I'm not really interested in millennia-old scientific studies. It's too hard to check for faked data, improper experimental techniques, or selection bias.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I've read and seen, iPhones have similar or greater performance compared with Androids that are about as expensive. I don't know how that compares in raw computrons, and I really don't care. If Apple has half the CPU power and twice the efficiency, it all balances out.
For their laptops and desktops, this is true. Those things have other features which some people like, and actually matching an Apple computer feature for feature is going to mean roughly equivalent cost. Some people care about these things, but the average geek doesn't (aside from being able to run a Unix).
Why? Facebook and Twitter have real use to many people. Why not leave them able to use Facebook easily, if they wish?
Seems reasonable to me, but don't forget what you mean to the company. If you're paying for good treatment, make sure you get it, or go elsewhere.
That being said, you're in a much stronger position with a company when you actually give them money directly rather than having them get revenue by monetizing you.
Why?
Apple wants me to keep buying Apple stuff, because that's how they make most of their money. It is in their best interest to make me not regret buying an Apple product. In the short run, they could cash in. In the long run, it could easily lose money. Apple plans for the long run, with customers they try to make happy.
Of course, a publicly held company can change at any time, but it seems unlikely that Apple will. Nobody's got the money for a hostile takeover.
In which case, people can actually be harmed or die for a variety of reasons.
I might be seriously ill or injured. I might not have transportation. I might be far away. I might have connectivity problems or a dead battery.
If you, as a manager, put me in a position where someone's life depends on me, specifically, receiving a call and coming in, you should be fired.
We all had our desk phones taken away, and software phones substituted. I figure there's no more than a 50% chance that I'll be able to answer the thing, and accessing stored messages requires some sort of code I don't remember ever being given.
Do you in fact make 30-40% more? In many companies, you wouldn't.
Not just three people. There are 168 hours in a week, and standard practice is 40 working hours, except for things like holidays and vacations and sick time. I'd figure five people is the minimum to cover something 24/7.
The other change is how fast the change is occurring. Retraining also does no good if the jobs you're being trained for go away before you've finished your training. It does limited good if it has to be done several times in a career.
Not everyone I know who's busting their ass can afford a house or fancy restaurants except once in a while, and they're limited as to the "rest of the world" they can afford to vacation in. Ass-busting is by no means a guarantee of success.
And the Assange fanbois are continuing with the unfounded FUD. I'm going with the evidence I've been able to find, and my deductions from that. In my opinion, Assange raped one or two women in Sweden, fled the accusation, fought extradition in the UK (which is reasonable), and when he lost fled to the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid facing justice in Sweden. Somewhere along the line he started making crap up about being afraid to come out, lest he be sent to the US. I haven't seen good evidence that the US wanted him back then, let alone now.
Time spent in the embassy does not count as time served in prison, so at this point he may just as well wait until the statute of limitations on his rape accusation expires in a couple of years.
He's been temporarily living in the Ecuadorian embassy for five years. That isn't his home.
Then why did Assange go to Sweden in the first place?
Wouldn't that make it easier? Alternatively, why didn't the US file an extradition request of their own?
From what I've gathered, they withdrew the request because Assange wasn't going to be available, and they can reinstate the main charge whenever they like. The statute of limitations has passed on the lesser charges.
I won't say you're making crap up. I will say that Assange is making crap up and you're falling for it. Nobody's supplied any reasonable evidence that the US wants him. If we did, we'd have filed an extradition request with the UK when Assange first arrived there, as the UK is known for handing people over to the US.
Assange is alleged to have committed rape in Sweden. (The evidence I've got suggests he actually did rape at least one woman, but that's obviously not definitive.) That's not non-violent. Sweden had to make the case that he was wanted for what would be a serious crime under UK law, or the extradition request would have been invalid. The UK courts considered that carefully, and agreed with Sweden.
Hence, Assange is not a non-violent criminal.
Also, this is an abuse of diplomatic rules. Diplomacy is not intended to shelter fugitives from justice. There is no good evidence that the US even wants Assange, so it comes down to Ecuador making crap up to make it look all legal.
Do you have any support for that belief? I haven't found any. I haven't seen evidence that the US wants him. Particularly now, he's mostly irrelevant and not worth the fuss extraordinary rendition would cause.
Think back to when Assange was relevant. He voluntarily moved to Sweden, and when he was wanted for sex crimes voluntarily went to Britain. This suggests that he felt safe in both countries, even though the UK is known for handing people over to the US.
Then, Sweden sent a valid extradition request to the UK, and Assange started making noises about how he'd be in danger in Sweden because the US would grab him. The British courts examined the case in detail and found there was no reason not to extradite him, so he fled to the Ecuadorian embassy.
I've seen zero evidence that the US actually wants him. There have been government officials who have disliked him, but that's not the same thing.
"Terrible sites", from a security point of view, nowadays include any sites with third-party advertisements. Pornhub might well be safer than the New York Times nowadays.
A bulky laptop bag works just great to hold a tablet and thin keyboard in addition to the laptop, in my experience.
The early IBM 360 culture was very similar in principle. People got their IBM 360s and 370s and normally got the suitable OS. It wasn't until later that IBM had to unbundle hardware and software, when companies like Amdahl started producing compatible hardware. People wrote software and shared it. When I was working on a 370 in the mid-70s, we used HASP as a spooling program, so we could (gasp) read in an entire card deck and have the program read the disk file, so we didn't have to keep a reader dedicated to a program. That was functionally open source software, and anyone who could afford a computer could jump in.
The big difference here is that computers don't cost nearly as much. At the job I had then, I was told that whether to add a megabyte of memory to a computer was a VP-level decision, and done after a lot of study. It wasn't that many decades later that a megabyte became cheap, and then too small a unit to bother with.
Let's be charitable. Acupuncture, properly done, has few or no adverse effects. The only way it's likely to be harmful is if someone relies on it instead of getting effective medical treatment. You can't say nearly the same about anti-vaxx movements.
Which is consistent with the placebo effect, FWIW. However, acupuncture is done by putting needles into significant points. For a double-blind study, you teach someone how to insert needles, acupuncture-style, without knowing more about it. You tell that person to insert needles at specific points. Some of these are traditional acupuncture points for the desired effect and some aren't. That eliminates cues to the patient. The blind scoring of results is normal.
How many of these use acupuncture? (I really don't know.)
The Wikipedia article gives references to studies in which acupuncture is not found to be more effective than putting needles in random places, and it isn't clear that random needling is better than placebo. Pain control is difficult to evaluate, since pain is self-reported, and it's not possible to do a blind test with the control group not being poked and the experimental group getting acupuncture.
I'm not really interested in millennia-old scientific studies. It's too hard to check for faked data, improper experimental techniques, or selection bias.