Two reasons: Because the DRM technology you've already bought and paid for is specifically designed to protect audio and video files, nothing else; and second, because the you haven't bought and paid for any access-restriction capability. The content providers use the access-restriction functions. The client side of DRM is solely responsible for making sure that you aren't restricted from accessing something you've purchased (in the way you're permitted to access it by the content provider.)
You left out something. "You can feed them forever or you can educate them" - until they starve to death, or die of AIDS, which is a huge problem in 3rd-world countries today. Mesh networks are awesome, sure - but do those in 3rd world countries know how to start up a mesh network? These aren't IT pros and Linux gurus. We're handing underpowered laptops to people who have absolutely no idea how to go about using them. If we're going to honestly educate and support these people in using this technology, the cost will be far more than $100 a pop. And, in the end, they still can't eat the laptop, and it still won't cure HIV, and it still won't make clean water, and it still isn't a hospital or a school or electricity.
I think the problem with the whole OLPC idea is that people really aren't thinking about what life is really like in these places, they aren't thinking through what's needed and how best to use it. And while, yes, the OLPC program can go on side-by-side with other programs, they would have done much better to donate the funds to organizations doing more useful work. In our rush to buy bigger TV's, faster PC's and shinier SUV's, our vision is clouded; we start to assume this is everyone's struggle, the struggle for a new couch and a new house and a new boat. But a huge portion of the world's population is still struggling for simple survival; for food, shelter, clean water, and any measure of health care. They're struggling, and they're losing. They have more important concerns than a laptop.
Deaf people can read. Deaf = can't hear. The blind are usually the ones with reading problems, though they sneak around that issue with such trickery as braille and text-to-speech.
Why not just do what they do with Pachinko in Japan?
Under Japanese law, cash cannot be paid out, but there is virtually always a small exchange centre located nearby (or sometimes in a separate room from the game parlor itself) where players can conveniently exchange tokens for prizes for cash. Such pseudo-cash gambling is theoretically illegal but from the sheer number of pachinko parlors in Japan it is clear that the activity is at least tacitly tolerated by the authorities.
You buy some tokens, you play with the tokens to win more tokens, you spend those tokens to buy a thing - a special, completely worthless thing, that can only be bought at the game parlor. You go outside, turn the corner, and sell the thing to a shop which is bizarrely interested in the thing, and is more than happy to buy it from you. At the end of the day, this shop then sells these special things back to the Pachinko parlor, who restocks them.
I just don't LIKE it due to the extra steps involved in doing things due to its design flaws. I don't LIKE it that emails are much harder to find and I have to use search to find everything. If you have used it, you have seen the "scrambling of the messages" into the "conversation groups": something which is half-assed as to be useless. Most of the time, my single email "conversations" are broken into several scrambled clumps. I do not like the threaded nature of the emails at all. I know how to use it, but prefer the superior standard. organization.
You seem to be having some confusion here between "opinion" and "fact". You say "design flaws" when you really mean things that you personally do not like; this is not a flaw, it is a personal preference. You say you "prefer the superior standard" - well, everyone prefers the superior thing, because it's superior. In this case, you call it superior because you prefer it, not the other way around. That's opinion, not fact.
The "Gmail groups them all into one nice little threaded message" you claim just does not happen (unless there is a configuration setting that I am missing). One exchange broken into several variations on "me, Bob" just does not cut it.
I've noticed the problem you're describing, however, it only ever happens when the subject of the emails is blank (or a reply to no subject, e.g., "Re: ") and thus Gmail has no basis to use to determine what is a reply to what.
My opinion may not be important, but it is more important than yours here (as most users still prefer cleanly organized emails instead of random clumps).
This is my favorite part, right here: this little blast of stunning logic is so good I'm thinking about putting it in my sig. What a succinct way of saying "even though this is just my personal opinion, it's more important that any opinion any of you sorry sods can come up with, because my opinion is the right one!" That's the kind of logic I can really appreciate. My favorite part here, and this is classic, is where you validate your opinion that your opinion matters the most by backing it up with your opinion that "most users" agree with you. Unless you've performed a study of email users to determine if that's the case, you just made that up. No one has an opinion any more important than anyone else's, especially here on/. - that's the whole point. And if you really want to rate one opinion against another, given that all opinions are equally valid (nomatter how idiotic), they can only be rated on the basis of how well they are argued - and by that yardstick, my dear friend, your opinion is not very important at all.
You're contradicting yourself here - which is it? "Everything you can download from the iTMS today was submitted by the labels", or "Apple's getting too many complaints about the labels botching the conversion, so they want to do the compression in-house"? Or is it both - Apple's gotten so many complaints that they hav the labels come into the Apple offices to do the compression & submission under Apple's quality-control eye?
I agree with that, certainly. I do think that Nintendo Wi-Fi has boosted the DS significantly, and I find it alarming that we aren't going to see any online-capable titles on Wii until 2007. The 360 is all about Live, which is doing really well for MS, even though they're really using Live as a giant profit machine. You get your 360 and your headset and hook up the ethernet cable and you're good to go. Built-in WiFi on Wii is a good move - it keeps you down to just the power and A/V cables because of the wireless controller, which makes it easier to set up, but it needs to offer that online capability ASAP, and with good quality games. I'm looking forward to Batallion Wars online on the Wii, and I'm hoping for online-capable Mario Kart, Mario Strikers, and Smash Bros. to be out in the near future as well.
I see the Wii as a huge potential success for Nintendo; they can easily get up to 2nd place behind the 360 (the PS3 being very ready to flop, IMHO), and possibly even outdo the 360 if they succeed in drawing in non-gamers. The price point will be a big help on that front, but online capabilities are important; I want to be able to buy a Wii for mom and play some Wii tennis the day she unpacks it, or encourage a friend to buy a unit so we can go head-to-head online.
With a non-online console, you go to a friend's house and play - if you buy your own, you get convenience, at the loss of the social aspect. With an online console, you've got a bigger incentive to buy your own unit, because it means you can play games with your friends from the comfort of your own sofa. When you're targeting non-gamers, you have to get them to want their own unit, not just want to casually use someone else's.
Certainly, but all that R&D cost is already on their books, and they haven't posted a loss, which means GC & DS made up for all of their R&D costs for the Wii, and then some.
But, the Wii ships with internal storage, backward-compatibility (all the way back to the NES, no less), and a wireless controller. So, it seems more appropriate to compare to the Premium.
That's just plain untrue. They aren't being "pumped cash". That's why teachers are underpaid, and we don't have enough of them, textbooks are decades old (as are the computers), buildings are in disrepair. Too bad "no child left behind" can't put its money where its mouth is.
I think they've switched over, from Wikipedia: "Short scale is the English translation of the French term échelle courte, which designates a system of numeric names in which the word billion means a thousand millions.
Long scale is the English translation of the French term échelle longue, which designates a system of numeric names in which the word billion means a million millions.
For most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the United Kingdom uniformly used the long scale, while the United States of America used the short scale, so the two systems were often (and accurately at that time) referred to as "British" and "American" usage, respectively. However, today the United Kingdom uses the short scale so widely that the term "British usage" is no longer an appropriate phrase."
Conservatism and conservationism are in no way related. A political conservative is typically socially conservative and fiscally conservative. In the United States, being socially conservative is typically associated with a desire to uphold Christian-based morals by way of law. Being fiscally conservative, those on the right are less likely to want to spend the money required to preserve the environment, not more likely.
Historically speaking, conservatives got their name not from environmental conservation but from conservation of tradition in society, versus the threat of change.
A conservationist, on the other hand, sees the value of environmental preservation and reparation as being worth the cost of additional taxes levied on the people to pay for the preservation effort.
But UPS and FedEx still gaurantee delivery within a certain period of time. I've heard no gaurantees from the big telcos. I've seen no reassurance from them that if MS keeps paying for their QOS to go up, that those who haven't paid won't see their QOS go down (in relation) indefinitely.
If UPS delivered all their ground shipments slower and slower and slower because bigger companies were all paying for Next Day Air, to the piont where you might be sure it'd get delivered, but you had no idea when (days, as you expect? or weeks? or months?) you might not be so happy with UPS' model any more.
How do you figure it'll cost the consumer more? Net Neutrality basically means the service providers can't double-dip and try to invent profit where there is absolutely no expense, thus unnaturally inflating the cost of the internet as a whole, by making service providers pay for the end users' end of the network connection, when end users are already paying for it, and service providers already have to pay for their own end of the connection. By making such unfair fees illegal, the failing of Net Neutrality "will cost the consumer more", not the other way around.
How do you figure it's "common sense" that Net Neutrality is bad for the consumer? The failing of net neutrality would almost assuredly make the costs of starting a new online business prohibitively expensive, as opposed to the amazingly level playing field we've managed to maintain for new business starting out on the internet for the last decade. If Amazon, Yahoo and MSN are all given the high-priority bandwidth, and the "next big thing" would be relegated to whatever is left over. With the "next big thing" appearing to be slower than dirt, through no fault of the creators, the "next big thing" becomes the "last failed thing", and the only companies that are able to innovate are the likes of Microsoft who can afford to put the money into it. What happens to all the sites out there right now you love so much? Wikipedia would be toast, so would Last.fm, and del.icio.us, and Digg... maybe even our very own Slashdot, who knows. It depends on how much more expensive it gets to run a high-traffic site.
Here's my favorite part: their argument is "why should Google be able to use my pipes for free?" To truly get an idea of just how absurd this would be, think about this: AT&T offers consumers and small businesses internet service, as well as offering backbone-level service to web hosting providers and data centers. Theoretically, there could be an AT&T pipe connecting Google's servers to the internet, and an AT&T DSL or dialup connection connecting YOU to the internet, and Google would STILL have to pay for "higher priority". In this scenario, not only would Google not be using those pipes "for free", but AT&T would in fact be collecting THREE TIMES from two parties.
But, forget all of that, because the real reason Net Neutrality is good is very, very simple. What matters is that Big Telco - specifically Verizon and SBC - had a brilliant idea of how to double their profits without incurring any additional expense, any additional work, or much in the way of additional equipment (routing gear is peanuts compared to most of the infrastructure expenses they've got), all the while looking like the indignant victim, by using peoples' fear and misunderstanding of technology. They want something for nothing and they'll use all the FUD they can muster to get it.
If you're just making a non-functioning mockup, who cares how lousy the code is? I agree completely if you're talking about production source, writing it by hand is the *only* way to go. But if you're just trying to put together visual mockups, and your alternatives are GIMP or pencil and paper, then clearly it doesn't matter what shape the source is in.
That's not "how tables are meant to be used". They're meant to be used for tabular data. Hence the name. Personally, I put text documents in a word processor, not in a spreadsheet, because the word processor has all the functionality I need to properly format and style my documents. Same exact concept.
I've never had problems getting pure-CSS documents to align properly in IE and FireFox, which make up the vast majority of internet users. I use tables for displaying rows and columns of tabular data. I use divs for marking up blocks of content, and spans for marking up spans of content, and CSS for layout and styling. Go figure - using markup for markup, and stylesheets for styling. What a concept.
It sounds like you think those tasks are more CPU-intensive than gaming might be. Gaming is not just a RAM benchmarks; games hit the CPU harder than almost anything you can throw at a PC. As far as application load times and AV scans go, that's probably equal parts CPU, RAM, and HD speed (more HD speed on the AV scan). If you're benchmarking a CPU, you've got synthetic benchmarks, games, and PhotoShop, pretty much.
It seems like it should be trivial to apply a thin, transparent film to windows to block RF signals, something like the RF equivalent of those privacy films you can get for bathroom windows so your neighbors can't watch you in the shower (not that they'd want to see most of us in the shower anyway...) A thin wire mesh implanted into a transparent stick-on plastic film you could put on the inside or outside of your windows.
Heck, there's probably already such a product out there, I'm just too lazy to actually look for it.
Except that in order for that to make any sense at all, he would have to be cleaning up at the one company he sent spam to. According to TFA, he didn't spam "the public", he spammed "his ex-employer, Domestic and General Group". You didn't even have to RTFA. You could have just read the second half of the blurb right here on/.
Not necessarily. I recieved one just yesterday which included a paragraph from one of the Harry Potter books (Goblet of Fire? I don't know, the excerpt was about Mad-Eye Moody), followed by it's pitch. Not quite what the article refers to (as it did include a sales pitch), but seems like a poor choice, as it opens them up not only to legal risk due to the spamming itself, but additional risk due to copyright infringement. Of course, I don't much care, as GMail dumped it into the Spam box all by its lonesome; I just happened to notice it while checking to see if it had marked any real mail as spam (which, amazingly, it never has for as long as I've been using it, which is almost as long as it's been around.)
Er, I mean, I'm sorry about all those folks that couldn't get their cars, but I really think the big news here is the first robot-police showdown in Earth history - from the article:
"In the course of a contract dispute, the city of Hoboken had police escort the Robotic employees from the premises just a few days before the contract between both parties was set to expire."
Police escorted robitc employees from the premises??? And we're worried about the cars???
That's why they specifically stated that they were NOT looking for recommendations on a specific framework, but rather information on the processes people use to CHOOSE a framework. Which would be akin to asking how you CHOOSE a language to use, not asking which language should be used.
Slashdot Mirror
Because, of course, you *need* to recompile the kernel on your cell phone. That's not a status symbol in any way at all. Really.
/.ers...
Well, okay - it's only a status symbol to
Two reasons: Because the DRM technology you've already bought and paid for is specifically designed to protect audio and video files, nothing else; and second, because the you haven't bought and paid for any access-restriction capability. The content providers use the access-restriction functions. The client side of DRM is solely responsible for making sure that you aren't restricted from accessing something you've purchased (in the way you're permitted to access it by the content provider.)
You left out something. "You can feed them forever or you can educate them" - until they starve to death, or die of AIDS, which is a huge problem in 3rd-world countries today. Mesh networks are awesome, sure - but do those in 3rd world countries know how to start up a mesh network? These aren't IT pros and Linux gurus. We're handing underpowered laptops to people who have absolutely no idea how to go about using them. If we're going to honestly educate and support these people in using this technology, the cost will be far more than $100 a pop. And, in the end, they still can't eat the laptop, and it still won't cure HIV, and it still won't make clean water, and it still isn't a hospital or a school or electricity. I think the problem with the whole OLPC idea is that people really aren't thinking about what life is really like in these places, they aren't thinking through what's needed and how best to use it. And while, yes, the OLPC program can go on side-by-side with other programs, they would have done much better to donate the funds to organizations doing more useful work. In our rush to buy bigger TV's, faster PC's and shinier SUV's, our vision is clouded; we start to assume this is everyone's struggle, the struggle for a new couch and a new house and a new boat. But a huge portion of the world's population is still struggling for simple survival; for food, shelter, clean water, and any measure of health care. They're struggling, and they're losing. They have more important concerns than a laptop.
Deaf people can read. Deaf = can't hear. The blind are usually the ones with reading problems, though they sneak around that issue with such trickery as braille and text-to-speech.
Indeed. Reference: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=multi+touch
Why not just do what they do with Pachinko in Japan?
You buy some tokens, you play with the tokens to win more tokens, you spend those tokens to buy a thing - a special, completely worthless thing, that can only be bought at the game parlor. You go outside, turn the corner, and sell the thing to a shop which is bizarrely interested in the thing, and is more than happy to buy it from you. At the end of the day, this shop then sells these special things back to the Pachinko parlor, who restocks them.
You seem to be having some confusion here between "opinion" and "fact". You say "design flaws" when you really mean things that you personally do not like; this is not a flaw, it is a personal preference. You say you "prefer the superior standard" - well, everyone prefers the superior thing, because it's superior. In this case, you call it superior because you prefer it, not the other way around. That's opinion, not fact.
I've noticed the problem you're describing, however, it only ever happens when the subject of the emails is blank (or a reply to no subject, e.g., "Re: ") and thus Gmail has no basis to use to determine what is a reply to what.
This is my favorite part, right here: this little blast of stunning logic is so good I'm thinking about putting it in my sig. What a succinct way of saying "even though this is just my personal opinion, it's more important that any opinion any of you sorry sods can come up with, because my opinion is the right one!" That's the kind of logic I can really appreciate. My favorite part here, and this is classic, is where you validate your opinion that your opinion matters the most by backing it up with your opinion that "most users" agree with you. Unless you've performed a study of email users to determine if that's the case, you just made that up. No one has an opinion any more important than anyone else's, especially here on /. - that's the whole point. And if you really want to rate one opinion against another, given that all opinions are equally valid (nomatter how idiotic), they can only be rated on the basis of how well they are argued - and by that yardstick, my dear friend, your opinion is not very important at all.
You're contradicting yourself here - which is it? "Everything you can download from the iTMS today was submitted by the labels", or "Apple's getting too many complaints about the labels botching the conversion, so they want to do the compression in-house"? Or is it both - Apple's gotten so many complaints that they hav the labels come into the Apple offices to do the compression & submission under Apple's quality-control eye?
I agree with that, certainly. I do think that Nintendo Wi-Fi has boosted the DS significantly, and I find it alarming that we aren't going to see any online-capable titles on Wii until 2007. The 360 is all about Live, which is doing really well for MS, even though they're really using Live as a giant profit machine. You get your 360 and your headset and hook up the ethernet cable and you're good to go. Built-in WiFi on Wii is a good move - it keeps you down to just the power and A/V cables because of the wireless controller, which makes it easier to set up, but it needs to offer that online capability ASAP, and with good quality games. I'm looking forward to Batallion Wars online on the Wii, and I'm hoping for online-capable Mario Kart, Mario Strikers, and Smash Bros. to be out in the near future as well.
I see the Wii as a huge potential success for Nintendo; they can easily get up to 2nd place behind the 360 (the PS3 being very ready to flop, IMHO), and possibly even outdo the 360 if they succeed in drawing in non-gamers. The price point will be a big help on that front, but online capabilities are important; I want to be able to buy a Wii for mom and play some Wii tennis the day she unpacks it, or encourage a friend to buy a unit so we can go head-to-head online.
With a non-online console, you go to a friend's house and play - if you buy your own, you get convenience, at the loss of the social aspect. With an online console, you've got a bigger incentive to buy your own unit, because it means you can play games with your friends from the comfort of your own sofa. When you're targeting non-gamers, you have to get them to want their own unit, not just want to casually use someone else's.
Certainly, but all that R&D cost is already on their books, and they haven't posted a loss, which means GC & DS made up for all of their R&D costs for the Wii, and then some.
But, the Wii ships with internal storage, backward-compatibility (all the way back to the NES, no less), and a wireless controller. So, it seems more appropriate to compare to the Premium.
That's just plain untrue. They aren't being "pumped cash". That's why teachers are underpaid, and we don't have enough of them, textbooks are decades old (as are the computers), buildings are in disrepair. Too bad "no child left behind" can't put its money where its mouth is.
I think they've switched over, from Wikipedia: "Short scale is the English translation of the French term échelle courte, which designates a system of numeric names in which the word billion means a thousand millions.
Long scale is the English translation of the French term échelle longue, which designates a system of numeric names in which the word billion means a million millions.
For most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the United Kingdom uniformly used the long scale, while the United States of America used the short scale, so the two systems were often (and accurately at that time) referred to as "British" and "American" usage, respectively. However, today the United Kingdom uses the short scale so widely that the term "British usage" is no longer an appropriate phrase."
Conservatism and conservationism are in no way related. A political conservative is typically socially conservative and fiscally conservative. In the United States, being socially conservative is typically associated with a desire to uphold Christian-based morals by way of law. Being fiscally conservative, those on the right are less likely to want to spend the money required to preserve the environment, not more likely.
Historically speaking, conservatives got their name not from environmental conservation but from conservation of tradition in society, versus the threat of change.
A conservationist, on the other hand, sees the value of environmental preservation and reparation as being worth the cost of additional taxes levied on the people to pay for the preservation effort.
But UPS and FedEx still gaurantee delivery within a certain period of time. I've heard no gaurantees from the big telcos. I've seen no reassurance from them that if MS keeps paying for their QOS to go up, that those who haven't paid won't see their QOS go down (in relation) indefinitely.
If UPS delivered all their ground shipments slower and slower and slower because bigger companies were all paying for Next Day Air, to the piont where you might be sure it'd get delivered, but you had no idea when (days, as you expect? or weeks? or months?) you might not be so happy with UPS' model any more.
How do you figure it'll cost the consumer more? Net Neutrality basically means the service providers can't double-dip and try to invent profit where there is absolutely no expense, thus unnaturally inflating the cost of the internet as a whole, by making service providers pay for the end users' end of the network connection, when end users are already paying for it, and service providers already have to pay for their own end of the connection. By making such unfair fees illegal, the failing of Net Neutrality "will cost the consumer more", not the other way around.
How do you figure it's "common sense" that Net Neutrality is bad for the consumer? The failing of net neutrality would almost assuredly make the costs of starting a new online business prohibitively expensive, as opposed to the amazingly level playing field we've managed to maintain for new business starting out on the internet for the last decade. If Amazon, Yahoo and MSN are all given the high-priority bandwidth, and the "next big thing" would be relegated to whatever is left over. With the "next big thing" appearing to be slower than dirt, through no fault of the creators, the "next big thing" becomes the "last failed thing", and the only companies that are able to innovate are the likes of Microsoft who can afford to put the money into it. What happens to all the sites out there right now you love so much? Wikipedia would be toast, so would Last.fm, and del.icio.us, and Digg... maybe even our very own Slashdot, who knows. It depends on how much more expensive it gets to run a high-traffic site.
Here's my favorite part: their argument is "why should Google be able to use my pipes for free?" To truly get an idea of just how absurd this would be, think about this: AT&T offers consumers and small businesses internet service, as well as offering backbone-level service to web hosting providers and data centers. Theoretically, there could be an AT&T pipe connecting Google's servers to the internet, and an AT&T DSL or dialup connection connecting YOU to the internet, and Google would STILL have to pay for "higher priority". In this scenario, not only would Google not be using those pipes "for free", but AT&T would in fact be collecting THREE TIMES from two parties.
But, forget all of that, because the real reason Net Neutrality is good is very, very simple. What matters is that Big Telco - specifically Verizon and SBC - had a brilliant idea of how to double their profits without incurring any additional expense, any additional work, or much in the way of additional equipment (routing gear is peanuts compared to most of the infrastructure expenses they've got), all the while looking like the indignant victim, by using peoples' fear and misunderstanding of technology. They want something for nothing and they'll use all the FUD they can muster to get it.
Don't let them!!
If you're just making a non-functioning mockup, who cares how lousy the code is? I agree completely if you're talking about production source, writing it by hand is the *only* way to go. But if you're just trying to put together visual mockups, and your alternatives are GIMP or pencil and paper, then clearly it doesn't matter what shape the source is in.
That's not "how tables are meant to be used". They're meant to be used for tabular data. Hence the name. Personally, I put text documents in a word processor, not in a spreadsheet, because the word processor has all the functionality I need to properly format and style my documents. Same exact concept.
I've never had problems getting pure-CSS documents to align properly in IE and FireFox, which make up the vast majority of internet users. I use tables for displaying rows and columns of tabular data. I use divs for marking up blocks of content, and spans for marking up spans of content, and CSS for layout and styling. Go figure - using markup for markup, and stylesheets for styling. What a concept.
See http://www.csszengarden.com/ for a little re-education on CSS.
Perhaps your difficulty is in someway related to your ego, o great "tech bad-ass".
It sounds like you think those tasks are more CPU-intensive than gaming might be. Gaming is not just a RAM benchmarks; games hit the CPU harder than almost anything you can throw at a PC. As far as application load times and AV scans go, that's probably equal parts CPU, RAM, and HD speed (more HD speed on the AV scan). If you're benchmarking a CPU, you've got synthetic benchmarks, games, and PhotoShop, pretty much.
It seems like it should be trivial to apply a thin, transparent film to windows to block RF signals, something like the RF equivalent of those privacy films you can get for bathroom windows so your neighbors can't watch you in the shower (not that they'd want to see most of us in the shower anyway...) A thin wire mesh implanted into a transparent stick-on plastic film you could put on the inside or outside of your windows.
Heck, there's probably already such a product out there, I'm just too lazy to actually look for it.
Except that in order for that to make any sense at all, he would have to be cleaning up at the one company he sent spam to. According to TFA, he didn't spam "the public", he spammed "his ex-employer, Domestic and General Group". You didn't even have to RTFA. You could have just read the second half of the blurb right here on /.
Not necessarily. I recieved one just yesterday which included a paragraph from one of the Harry Potter books (Goblet of Fire? I don't know, the excerpt was about Mad-Eye Moody), followed by it's pitch. Not quite what the article refers to (as it did include a sales pitch), but seems like a poor choice, as it opens them up not only to legal risk due to the spamming itself, but additional risk due to copyright infringement. Of course, I don't much care, as GMail dumped it into the Spam box all by its lonesome; I just happened to notice it while checking to see if it had marked any real mail as spam (which, amazingly, it never has for as long as I've been using it, which is almost as long as it's been around.)
Er, I mean, I'm sorry about all those folks that couldn't get their cars, but I really think the big news here is the first robot-police showdown in Earth history - from the article:
"In the course of a contract dispute, the city of Hoboken had police escort the Robotic employees from the premises just a few days before the contract between both parties was set to expire."
Police escorted robitc employees from the premises??? And we're worried about the cars???
That's why they specifically stated that they were NOT looking for recommendations on a specific framework, but rather information on the processes people use to CHOOSE a framework. Which would be akin to asking how you CHOOSE a language to use, not asking which language should be used.