Listen to the man, he knows of that which he speaks.
More bandwidth may not solve all the problems, but it'll sure as hell solve some of them.
I don't know how many of you still remember the dialup days, or even used dial-up. When the schoolkids got home, they'd start hitting AOL and you'd notice the lag.
It's not as bad now, what with me having a 25/25Mbps line. But there's still a very wide range of criminal acts that I'd perform to have my own 1 Gbps line.
Of course, most parts of the country have 1.5mbs or less for their internet connection. Should the emphasis be on providing a few people, in select metropolitan areas, unbelievable bandwidth or should it be on providing reasonable bandwidth for the rest of the country?
Out of curiousity, who will pay for this increased bandwidth/pipe? It seems that laying fiber everywhere across the country is either going to take government subsidies or be cost prohibitive if you are outside of metropolitan areas.
The second question would be is whether or not that increased bandwidth is the most efficient way to stream video? Dish network and DirectTV seem to do a pretty good job with video, now. Wouldn't it make more sense to have an internet connection from a satellite provider where you could order video on demand (or even a cable provider). It would then go direct to your tv, dvr or pc?
"There must be some reason that doing it this way is the most used way. "
Probably laziness. The fact that a lot of people sue it does not make it good: see: Access. Best as in: It's poor engineering to use them. If you don't understand that, please stick to VB.
For those people choosing to use access, based on their selection criteria, it must be "best" or they wouldn't have chosen it. With regards to VB. It was best, or one of them, for things like quick and dirty prototyping and testing concepts. However, the original post is not about access or vb but instead C++. So, assuming we have real programmers, if the majority of them have chosen to code in a certain style or to implement an algorihm in a certain way, there must be a good reason for it other than laziness (in which case, they probably wouldn't be using C++ in the first place).
Even using "engineering" as a definition for best is problematic. Good engineering in academia is not the same thing in the real world. There is a real difference between what conceptually is the "best" engineering and what is practical with regards to the environment an application will run it.
But even if engineering is to be the basis for "best," what is good engineering to be based on? Is it portability? Is it maintainability? Is it execution speed or memory footprint?
Back in my university days, we were challenged to write a COBOL application that would calculate the trajectory of a space craft to the moon and back (this was during the Apollo missions). Obviously, nobody in their right mind would do that in a real world program, although it did require a lot of good "engineering." So, does that mean the COBOL program was the best because the engineering required far exceeded that needed to do it in Fortran? BTW, the point of the programming exercise was to show that just about any language could be used to code any type of program.
I think that most "best practices" are based on what most programmers are doing with the language in question. As such, if most C++ programmers are using enums in a certain way, it kind of becomes the best practice, until enough programmers change to doing it a different way. Most organizations I have worked for/with pretty standard coding practices, which they have determined to be their best way of implementing things (right or wrong).
It is the most used way, not the best one. It is an inappropriate way. Even if bitfields have drawbacks, simple constants defined in a namespace remain a better choice.
It depends on what you mean by the word "best." There must be some reason that doing it this way is the most used way. Evidently, for many, it seems that it is the "best" way to do it. Since "best" is such an ambiguous word, maybe it would be better to elaborate on why it is inferior? Does it use more memory? Is it slower to execute? Is it more difficult to maintain? Depending on one's needs, the answer to any of those questions might influence what "best" means.
Indeed. Pease crashed on Pierce Rd. in Saratoga and I had a very close call myself several years back near the intersection of Pierce Rd. and Hwy 9 in my 1967 VW Karmann Ghia, so I have some experience here. The early VWs (up to 1969 for the Ghia, and I think '70 for the Beetles) had swing axle rear ends that jack up the rear end in turns so that the tires are riding on their edges. Since the engines are in the back, this causes the car to lose control very quickly on tight turns like those on Pierce Rd. and Hwy 9. After '69/70 or so, VW put IRS in their vehicles to fix this problem, keeping the wheels relatively perpendicular to the road in turns.
IIRC, it was the swing axle rear ends in the Corvairs that led to Nader's "Unsafe at any speed" suit.
This is a bit off topic, but having a technical discussion about the cause of the crash is probably what Pease would do too;) Rest in peace.
VW started the switch to what was known as an independent rear suspension beginning in 1967. The swing axle was also an independent suspension, but the the term IRS suspension was used to differentiate between the two. Many swing axle VWs were converted to IRS suspension in the subsequent 40years as they were more readily available until production ceased.
However, it would appear something else was going on regarding the crash, as a swing axle failure would either cause the car to roll or to spin. Either one would make it unlikely that he would hit a tree "head on." It is simply impossible from the information given in the article to know if the VW itself contributed to the accident or the outcome.
BTW, in the interest of full disclosure, I drive a restored 72VW, and while not as safe as a modern car, it is not the death trap that Nader proposed.
I see a lot of big words, but no real reason. You think high school teachers, cops, and public officials did not do keg stands in college? Or that none of them partied?
Damaging someone's credibility amongst a certain stuck-up demographic need not impair their ability to do their jobs -- I'm curious to see how you made that connection.
Other than the picture sent to a teen, what did Weiner do that was illegal? Nothing. He sent pictures of himself in various states of undress, but that isn't illegal (unless to minors or employees). So, if he were applying for a job at your place of business, such behaviour would not cause you some concern?
If people want to post pictures, that is fine -- give access only to your friends. If you feel a real need to make the pictures available to the whole world, that is fine, too. However, you should be willing to suffer the consequences of such revelations. People do have the right to privacy. However, once you post your personal or private life for the whole world to see, you have voluntarily given up that right.
There's nothing illegal about owning and being proud of guns (at least in the US)...so I don't get this comment on the article.
It isn't like being a gun owner would prevent anyone from getting a job or anything...never heard of that one.
A better question would be why would anybody give open access to their photos on something like FB instead of only granting access to their "friends?" It is amazing how much personal stuff people put out in the open on the internet. As an employer I would be more concerned about people's overall lack of discretion than the actual content of most social networking postings. Lack of discretion relates to ones judgment and could be indicative of one's job performance.
And some general advice: don’t go too crazy trying to do _everything_ in Linux for the principle of it. If it’s easy, do it, if not, just get a windows VM up and running
is that an offer to cover the cost for anybody, or a suggestion to pirate it ?:)
Chances are, his laptop has a windows license already, so technically, it wouldn't be a pirated copy. Now, whether he has the install disks or has to borrow a copy and use his own key is a different story.
A true geek would have pointed out before you could truly have this discussion, one must define what the definition of a geek is. It seems in society and here on slashdot, we have many who exhibit "geeky" behavior, but that in and of itself does not make one a geek.
The reason MS has been lagging on innovation is that they are still the dominant player in office apps and in consumer operating systems. MS executives and engineers are used to sleeping soundly at night. Google has innovated because they were a new company and need to come up with something fast. Apple innovated because if they kept on selling OS 9 on Motorola they would have gone out of business five years ago. IBM got out of the retail space and focused on being a computer science company.
There is not a lot of room for growth or innovation at the top. Look at GM, AT&T, Disney, Boeing, PanAm and other former industry leaders. They get too comfortable to innovate. Suddenly new players are entering their markets and they are late to see that the competition is better. As for the hedge fund managers comments. I would take them with a grain of salt. He obviously has put a fair amount of his clients money in MS. Is he really long on MS, or just trying to stir up enough controversy that he can dislodge SB and make a few million on the bump?
If I had points, I'd mod you up. What you are describing is known in business terms as the "fat cat syndrome." Businesses become so successful that future products are evaluated not as to what they can do to benefit the company, but instead how they will cut into existing product lines. IBM was the biggest example of this back in the 70s and 80s.
For IBM, they purposely held down the PC because it was a threat to their mini computer and later small main frame business. The arrogantly made the statement that they would have to sell a lot of PCs to make the profit from one System 36. True, but very short sighted. The whole PS/2 line was an attempt to treat the PC as a technology platform like the System 36.
Meanwhile, since IBM was no longer "leading" in the field, others stepped up and took the control away from them. Microsoft is in the same boat. There is nothing in Google or Amazon or whomever that MIcrosoft couldn't have done or didn't have the resources to do. Instead, they want/wanted to protect their current product line (Windows and Office). Of course, now that the market is saturated, at least in the West, so that PCs are now commodity priced, there is no growth left in Microsoft's core products. Nor can those products provide the substantial returns needed to provide the future resources.
The only place Microsoft has not followed this method is with their XBox. They continue to introduce new technologies, plus their pricing model is very different. With the XBox, they initially loss money on each XBox sold, but made it up from commissions from the game producers for each game sold. They no longer lose money on the hardware side of the XBox, but it is still well below the ROI on most technology products and relies heavily on game sales commissions to generate revenue.
One reason that lead to this with the XBox is that there is/was substantial competition in the market place. This did not/does not exist in their PC offerings. Yes, there is competition, but not substantial competition. With smart phones, Microsoft is coming late to the game. Usually, in a technology, this is bad. However, the phone market changes so quickly, that it can be an advantage, if Microsoft learns from other's mistakes and adds features not found but wanted elsewhere. There is a good chance that the phone market can support 3 different platforms. This does not bode well for RIM as they will most likely be impacted than iOS and Android, but time will tell.
The fat cat syndrome has seen many once profitable, at the top of the world, companies falter. What happened to Lotus, or Ashton Tate or even Wordperfect? HP, Compaq, AST, etc., are just shadows of what they once were. Like IBM, all of these companies fell victim to protective decisions. Basically, these companies, and Microsoft, are trying to use a prevent defense as in American Football. The problem with that tactic is that it allows the other side, th
More than likely, this is just a cost saving measure by Skype to improve the books for the merger. Microsoft would have no say in such a minor thing at this point. The deal still has to go through FTC approval before Microsoft has any control over operations.
It makes no sense why Microsoft would even care at this point. In fact, from Microsoft's perspective, the more money skype loses the better, as it drives the price down. Skype itself is the only one that would micro-manage this at this point.
Or Skype knows that Microsoft wants these skype clients dropped and one explanation for paying so much over market price for skype could be that part of the "deal" is that Skype drops support for what Microsoft doesn't want before the purchase. That way, Microsoft can honestly say they didn't drop support for Asterisk or Linux or whatever. Happens all the time in mergers and acquisitions: "We really would like to purchase our company, but the operations in xyz create a real problem for us." Next thing you know, there aren't any operations in xyz.
GM's black boxes, harness and sensors have a gross weight of 46.5 lbs (just had to order and replace one on a vehicle). This proposal will double the sensors (and wiring). Plus, GM's box isn't designed to be crash proof or fire proof (and very often doesn't survive). As such, the 50lbs could be low.
Mandatory black boxes are not a very green solution. Assuming the device is built strong enough to survive the impact and fire, etc, the weight of it and the various wiring and sensors will be around 50lbs. Now an extra 50 lbs of weight in a car will reduce mileage a bit. One car, not too bad, but a 2.5 million vehicles and that reduced fuel economy adds up to measurable numbers.
Black boxes are only useful after the fact to determine who to blame for an accident. 90% of the time, that is not an issue. For the other 10%, is it worth using ever dwindling oil supplies?
You've obviously never used an iPhone and thus, don't understand how retarded these people are for getting confused by this screen. While I've owned both an iPhone and an Android phone and can say that Android is much more intuitive (especially since it has a goddamn BACK button), this is still a matter of people just needed to be smacked upside the head and told "use your damn brain".
When you first go to it, that list of alarms is blank so you only have the + button. When there's only the one button, WTF else do you think you're going to hit to set an alarm?
Well, if Apple were to take your approach and tell people they are too dumb to use their phone, it would be time to dump Apple's stock. It doesn't matter if the elderly people you are referring to are "retarded" or not. It doesn't matter that they are getting confused by the screen. What does matter, at least to Apple, is that a significant portion of the market they are wanting to expand into thinks their phone is not intuitive or simple.
Now Apple can do something about it or they can claim their phone is only for young, smart people and let Google and Microsoft take over the market share from them.
It's easy to blame the elderly. Most of the posts on this topic are doing just that. However, if Apple wants to blame the elderly because they can't figure out iOS, that's fine. I'm sure Samsung or HTC or somebody will be more than happy to sell them a phone running Android that is configured to meet the needs of the purchaser.
When Apple was pretty much the only smart phone around, they could come out with whatever interface they wanted and uses had to adapt to it. That is no longer the case. And, since the elderly are the last large demographic to market smart phones to, whoever caters to their needs, whether real or perceived, will be the one selling phones.
Rather, its a case of just having the patience to poke at it and see what happens. And that reluctance to explore, be it fear of breaking something or lack of patience for the extra work required seems to become more common as people age - after all the phrase "set in their ways" isn't one typically applied to youths.
You don't really mean that, do you? If somebody borrowed your phone, do your really want them just poking buttons and icons to see what happens? Probably not. How about your computer? Do you want somebody to just start clicking on things to see what happens? What about your car. If you purchased one of those hybrids that half to have things done certain ways, are you going to lend it to somebody and tell them just to poke around and figure it out? No, of course not.
So, if you aren't willing to do that with your stuff, why would a manufacture be encourage to do it?
Because if you use the word "alarm" you have to make a different version of the clock for each country you sell it in that speaks a different language.
It's the same reason why everything with an on/off switch has "1" and "0" or icons, not the words "on" and "off".
Just as the other text for apps in an iPhone or Android phone appear in the native language the phone is set for, wouldn't the word "Alarm" also do that? However, you really wouldn't need the word "alarm" anyway. A picture of a bell or an icon that actually looks like an alarm clock would probably suffice.
In rebuttal, I offer my personal anecdote: My mom has never had such an easy time using technology, than now in 2011, now that I've set her on iOS and soon, OSX. Just because the older generation doesn't find it intuitive doesn't mean they can't figure it out with a little tinkering, or at worst, very little Applecare phone support. To insinuate they can't set freaking alarms because they might accidentally push the wrong thing at first is insulting.
Of course, not every elderly person has somebody to "set them up" on iOS or OS X. Would you mother been as successful with this if she had to do it by herself, with no help from her son? If not, then your rebuttal falls short of the mark.
Face it, this is a serious issue for software developers. If iPhone sales are going to be limited to the young, well, that market is already saturated and the declining birthrate doesn't bode well. Apple needs to expand it's market to those people who are current users and that means the elderly. If, for whatever reason, they find the interface confusing, then it won't sell.
The challenge will be to redesign the interface so new users adopt it but not to alienate the current installed base.
Any manufacturer also has to have a license to operate; it is called a business license.
A manufacturing plant is an ongoing business while a building renovation is not therefore the building permit comparison is invalid.
Are you concerned with the fact that an inspection is taking place or the people who are doing the inspection.
What most people in this discussion miss is that it is a business being inspected and not a private home.
Law enforcement still needs a warrant to search a place of business, other than public areas. See, the thing is, when businesses are searched, it is individuals that are charged. Those individuals have rights, whether in a place of business or not. Of course, if another employee lets the police in, then they do not need a warrant. Think how much more efficient it would be if businesses, say warehouses, could be searched without a warrant. Efficiency at the price of violating basic rights, that is.
From the article: "Under current law, "reproducing" and "distributing" copyrighted works are felony charges and cover P2P transfers and Web downloads. But streaming is a "public performance" rather than a "distribution"—and holding a public performance without a proper license is not a felony. S. 978 adds "public performance" to the felony list."
Current existing law makes p2p of a copyrighted work a felony, but this new law adds streaming. Like that site megavideos streams shows that is probably shouldn't. It is news to me that bitorrenting things is currently a felony.....
Under current law reproducing and distributing copyrighted works could be a felony charge, but most often is handled with a civil suit, which has a significantly lower burden of proof than a criminal charge. And when charged with it criminally, it is usually a misdemeanor, not a felony.
hence the (initially) part of the statement. Once the viruses and malware are compiled for ARM, then its back to business as usual.
But would not Windows 3.1 be "the first full-bodied version of Windows that won't (initially) be susceptible to viruses and malware...?" Not being susceptible because the virus has not been rewritten really means that it is susceptible out of the box.
Does a health inspector need a warrant to search a restaurant or food plant? Does a BATF inspector need a warrant to search a distillery? Does a safety inspector need a warrant to search a manufacturing plant? In all these cases the answer is no. They can freely inspect commercial establishments to ensure the companies are following the law.
Equating this to random searches of houses is FUD.
Actually, restaurants and distilleries receive licenses from the government to operate and part of the license agreement allows for inspections. Federal law allows OSHA to come inspect a manufacturing plant. However, the police cannot come and do the same without a warrant.
Now if the duplication of the disks falls under the hazards that OSHA is responsible for protecting workers against, then OSHA can inspect without a warrant, but no else can.
Just like when your new house is being built, the building inspector can come and inspect it whenever they want. After it is built, they can't.
If they truly want to crack down on illegal duplication of CDs and DVDs, they need to look at South East Asia, not South Central LA. Of course that would make it a State Department issue and not a 4th amendment issue, as California doesn't have any jurisdiction over other countries.
Slashdot Mirror
Listen to the man, he knows of that which he speaks.
More bandwidth may not solve all the problems, but it'll sure as hell solve some of them.
I don't know how many of you still remember the dialup days, or even used dial-up. When the schoolkids got home, they'd start hitting AOL and you'd notice the lag.
It's not as bad now, what with me having a 25/25Mbps line. But there's still a very wide range of criminal acts that I'd perform to have my own 1 Gbps line.
Of course, most parts of the country have 1.5mbs or less for their internet connection. Should the emphasis be on providing a few people, in select metropolitan areas, unbelievable bandwidth or should it be on providing reasonable bandwidth for the rest of the country?
Out of curiousity, who will pay for this increased bandwidth/pipe? It seems that laying fiber everywhere across the country is either going to take government subsidies or be cost prohibitive if you are outside of metropolitan areas.
The second question would be is whether or not that increased bandwidth is the most efficient way to stream video? Dish network and DirectTV seem to do a pretty good job with video, now. Wouldn't it make more sense to have an internet connection from a satellite provider where you could order video on demand (or even a cable provider). It would then go direct to your tv, dvr or pc?
I can assure you; the very instant the right material for constructing this becomes accessible, it goes to mass production.
Transparent aluminum, maybe?
"There must be some reason that doing it this way is the most used way. "
Probably laziness. The fact that a lot of people sue it does not make it good: see: Access.
Best as in: It's poor engineering to use them. If you don't understand that, please stick to VB.
For those people choosing to use access, based on their selection criteria, it must be "best" or they wouldn't have chosen it. With regards to VB. It was best, or one of them, for things like quick and dirty prototyping and testing concepts. However, the original post is not about access or vb but instead C++. So, assuming we have real programmers, if the majority of them have chosen to code in a certain style or to implement an algorihm in a certain way, there must be a good reason for it other than laziness (in which case, they probably wouldn't be using C++ in the first place).
Even using "engineering" as a definition for best is problematic. Good engineering in academia is not the same thing in the real world. There is a real difference between what conceptually is the "best" engineering and what is practical with regards to the environment an application will run it.
But even if engineering is to be the basis for "best," what is good engineering to be based on? Is it portability? Is it maintainability? Is it execution speed or memory footprint?
Back in my university days, we were challenged to write a COBOL application that would calculate the trajectory of a space craft to the moon and back (this was during the Apollo missions). Obviously, nobody in their right mind would do that in a real world program, although it did require a lot of good "engineering." So, does that mean the COBOL program was the best because the engineering required far exceeded that needed to do it in Fortran? BTW, the point of the programming exercise was to show that just about any language could be used to code any type of program.
I think that most "best practices" are based on what most programmers are doing with the language in question. As such, if most C++ programmers are using enums in a certain way, it kind of becomes the best practice, until enough programmers change to doing it a different way. Most organizations I have worked for/with pretty standard coding practices, which they have determined to be their best way of implementing things (right or wrong).
It is the most used way, not the best one. It is an inappropriate way. Even if bitfields have drawbacks, simple constants defined in a namespace remain a better choice.
It depends on what you mean by the word "best." There must be some reason that doing it this way is the most used way. Evidently, for many, it seems that it is the "best" way to do it. Since "best" is such an ambiguous word, maybe it would be better to elaborate on why it is inferior? Does it use more memory? Is it slower to execute? Is it more difficult to maintain? Depending on one's needs, the answer to any of those questions might influence what "best" means.
Indeed. Pease crashed on Pierce Rd. in Saratoga and I had a very close call myself several years back near the intersection of Pierce Rd. and Hwy 9 in my 1967 VW Karmann Ghia, so I have some experience here. The early VWs (up to 1969 for the Ghia, and I think '70 for the Beetles) had swing axle rear ends that jack up the rear end in turns so that the tires are riding on their edges. Since the engines are in the back, this causes the car to lose control very quickly on tight turns like those on Pierce Rd. and Hwy 9. After '69/70 or so, VW put IRS in their vehicles to fix this problem, keeping the wheels relatively perpendicular to the road in turns.
IIRC, it was the swing axle rear ends in the Corvairs that led to Nader's "Unsafe at any speed" suit.
This is a bit off topic, but having a technical discussion about the cause of the crash is probably what Pease would do too ;) Rest in peace.
VW started the switch to what was known as an independent rear suspension beginning in 1967. The swing axle was also an independent suspension, but the the term IRS suspension was used to differentiate between the two. Many swing axle VWs were converted to IRS suspension in the subsequent 40years as they were more readily available until production ceased.
However, it would appear something else was going on regarding the crash, as a swing axle failure would either cause the car to roll or to spin. Either one would make it unlikely that he would hit a tree "head on." It is simply impossible from the information given in the article to know if the VW itself contributed to the accident or the outcome.
BTW, in the interest of full disclosure, I drive a restored 72VW, and while not as safe as a modern car, it is not the death trap that Nader proposed.
I see a lot of big words, but no real reason. You think high school teachers, cops, and public officials did not do keg stands in college? Or that none of them partied?
Damaging someone's credibility amongst a certain stuck-up demographic need not impair their ability to do their jobs -- I'm curious to see how you made that connection.
Other than the picture sent to a teen, what did Weiner do that was illegal? Nothing. He sent pictures of himself in various states of undress, but that isn't illegal (unless to minors or employees). So, if he were applying for a job at your place of business, such behaviour would not cause you some concern?
If people want to post pictures, that is fine -- give access only to your friends. If you feel a real need to make the pictures available to the whole world, that is fine, too. However, you should be willing to suffer the consequences of such revelations. People do have the right to privacy. However, once you post your personal or private life for the whole world to see, you have voluntarily given up that right.
Why would you need to 'hide' your gun photos?
There's nothing illegal about owning and being proud of guns (at least in the US)...so I don't get this comment on the article.
It isn't like being a gun owner would prevent anyone from getting a job or anything...never heard of that one.
A better question would be why would anybody give open access to their photos on something like FB instead of only granting access to their "friends?" It is amazing how much personal stuff people put out in the open on the internet. As an employer I would be more concerned about people's overall lack of discretion than the actual content of most social networking postings. Lack of discretion relates to ones judgment and could be indicative of one's job performance.
And some general advice: don’t go too crazy trying to do _everything_ in Linux for the principle of it. If it’s easy, do it, if not, just get a windows VM up and running
is that an offer to cover the cost for anybody, or a suggestion to pirate it ? :)
Chances are, his laptop has a windows license already, so technically, it wouldn't be a pirated copy. Now, whether he has the install disks or has to borrow a copy and use his own key is a different story.
Maybe he should ask Citigroup credit card holders?
A true geek would have pointed out before you could truly have this discussion, one must define what the definition of a geek is. It seems in society and here on slashdot, we have many who exhibit "geeky" behavior, but that in and of itself does not make one a geek.
The reason MS has been lagging on innovation is that they are still the dominant player in office apps and in consumer operating systems. MS executives and engineers are used to sleeping soundly at night. Google has innovated because they were a new company and need to come up with something fast. Apple innovated because if they kept on selling OS 9 on Motorola they would have gone out of business five years ago. IBM got out of the retail space and focused on being a computer science company.
There is not a lot of room for growth or innovation at the top. Look at GM, AT&T, Disney, Boeing, PanAm and other former industry leaders. They get too comfortable to innovate. Suddenly new players are entering their markets and they are late to see that the competition is better. As for the hedge fund managers comments. I would take them with a grain of salt. He obviously has put a fair amount of his clients money in MS. Is he really long on MS, or just trying to stir up enough controversy that he can dislodge SB and make a few million on the bump?
If I had points, I'd mod you up. What you are describing is known in business terms as the "fat cat syndrome." Businesses become so successful that future products are evaluated not as to what they can do to benefit the company, but instead how they will cut into existing product lines. IBM was the biggest example of this back in the 70s and 80s.
For IBM, they purposely held down the PC because it was a threat to their mini computer and later small main frame business. The arrogantly made the statement that they would have to sell a lot of PCs to make the profit from one System 36. True, but very short sighted. The whole PS/2 line was an attempt to treat the PC as a technology platform like the System 36.
Meanwhile, since IBM was no longer "leading" in the field, others stepped up and took the control away from them. Microsoft is in the same boat. There is nothing in Google or Amazon or whomever that MIcrosoft couldn't have done or didn't have the resources to do. Instead, they want/wanted to protect their current product line (Windows and Office). Of course, now that the market is saturated, at least in the West, so that PCs are now commodity priced, there is no growth left in Microsoft's core products. Nor can those products provide the substantial returns needed to provide the future resources.
The only place Microsoft has not followed this method is with their XBox. They continue to introduce new technologies, plus their pricing model is very different. With the XBox, they initially loss money on each XBox sold, but made it up from commissions from the game producers for each game sold. They no longer lose money on the hardware side of the XBox, but it is still well below the ROI on most technology products and relies heavily on game sales commissions to generate revenue.
One reason that lead to this with the XBox is that there is/was substantial competition in the market place. This did not/does not exist in their PC offerings. Yes, there is competition, but not substantial competition. With smart phones, Microsoft is coming late to the game. Usually, in a technology, this is bad. However, the phone market changes so quickly, that it can be an advantage, if Microsoft learns from other's mistakes and adds features not found but wanted elsewhere. There is a good chance that the phone market can support 3 different platforms. This does not bode well for RIM as they will most likely be impacted than iOS and Android, but time will tell.
The fat cat syndrome has seen many once profitable, at the top of the world, companies falter. What happened to Lotus, or Ashton Tate or even Wordperfect? HP, Compaq, AST, etc., are just shadows of what they once were. Like IBM, all of these companies fell victim to protective decisions. Basically, these companies, and Microsoft, are trying to use a prevent defense as in American Football. The problem with that tactic is that it allows the other side, th
More than likely, this is just a cost saving measure by Skype to improve the books for the merger. Microsoft would have no say in such a minor thing at this point. The deal still has to go through FTC approval before Microsoft has any control over operations.
It makes no sense why Microsoft would even care at this point. In fact, from Microsoft's perspective, the more money skype loses the better, as it drives the price down. Skype itself is the only one that would micro-manage this at this point.
Or Skype knows that Microsoft wants these skype clients dropped and one explanation for paying so much over market price for skype could be that part of the "deal" is that Skype drops support for what Microsoft doesn't want before the purchase. That way, Microsoft can honestly say they didn't drop support for Asterisk or Linux or whatever. Happens all the time in mergers and acquisitions: "We really would like to purchase our company, but the operations in xyz create a real problem for us." Next thing you know, there aren't any operations in xyz.
GM's black boxes, harness and sensors have a gross weight of 46.5 lbs (just had to order and replace one on a vehicle). This proposal will double the sensors (and wiring). Plus, GM's box isn't designed to be crash proof or fire proof (and very often doesn't survive). As such, the 50lbs could be low.
Mandatory black boxes are not a very green solution. Assuming the device is built strong enough to survive the impact and fire, etc, the weight of it and the various wiring and sensors will be around 50lbs. Now an extra 50 lbs of weight in a car will reduce mileage a bit. One car, not too bad, but a 2.5 million vehicles and that reduced fuel economy adds up to measurable numbers.
Black boxes are only useful after the fact to determine who to blame for an accident. 90% of the time, that is not an issue. For the other 10%, is it worth using ever dwindling oil supplies?
You've obviously never used an iPhone and thus, don't understand how retarded these people are for getting confused by this screen. While I've owned both an iPhone and an Android phone and can say that Android is much more intuitive (especially since it has a goddamn BACK button), this is still a matter of people just needed to be smacked upside the head and told "use your damn brain".
Here is a picture of the offending app http://callstyle.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/snap-alarm.jpg
When you first go to it, that list of alarms is blank so you only have the + button. When there's only the one button, WTF else do you think you're going to hit to set an alarm?
Well, if Apple were to take your approach and tell people they are too dumb to use their phone, it would be time to dump Apple's stock. It doesn't matter if the elderly people you are referring to are "retarded" or not. It doesn't matter that they are getting confused by the screen. What does matter, at least to Apple, is that a significant portion of the market they are wanting to expand into thinks their phone is not intuitive or simple.
Now Apple can do something about it or they can claim their phone is only for young, smart people and let Google and Microsoft take over the market share from them.
It's easy to blame the elderly. Most of the posts on this topic are doing just that. However, if Apple wants to blame the elderly because they can't figure out iOS, that's fine. I'm sure Samsung or HTC or somebody will be more than happy to sell them a phone running Android that is configured to meet the needs of the purchaser.
When Apple was pretty much the only smart phone around, they could come out with whatever interface they wanted and uses had to adapt to it. That is no longer the case. And, since the elderly are the last large demographic to market smart phones to, whoever caters to their needs, whether real or perceived, will be the one selling phones.
Simple and intuitive are not synonymous.
Rather, its a case of just having the patience to poke at it and see what happens. And that reluctance to explore, be it fear of breaking something or lack of patience for the extra work required seems to become more common as people age - after all the phrase "set in their ways" isn't one typically applied to youths.
You don't really mean that, do you? If somebody borrowed your phone, do your really want them just poking buttons and icons to see what happens? Probably not. How about your computer? Do you want somebody to just start clicking on things to see what happens? What about your car. If you purchased one of those hybrids that half to have things done certain ways, are you going to lend it to somebody and tell them just to poke around and figure it out? No, of course not.
So, if you aren't willing to do that with your stuff, why would a manufacture be encourage to do it?
Because if you use the word "alarm" you have to make a different version of the clock for each country you sell it in that speaks a different language.
It's the same reason why everything with an on/off switch has "1" and "0" or icons, not the words "on" and "off".
Just as the other text for apps in an iPhone or Android phone appear in the native language the phone is set for, wouldn't the word "Alarm" also do that? However, you really wouldn't need the word "alarm" anyway. A picture of a bell or an icon that actually looks like an alarm clock would probably suffice.
In rebuttal, I offer my personal anecdote: My mom has never had such an easy time using technology, than now in 2011, now that I've set her on iOS and soon, OSX. Just because the older generation doesn't find it intuitive doesn't mean they can't figure it out with a little tinkering, or at worst, very little Applecare phone support. To insinuate they can't set freaking alarms because they might accidentally push the wrong thing at first is insulting.
Of course, not every elderly person has somebody to "set them up" on iOS or OS X. Would you mother been as successful with this if she had to do it by herself, with no help from her son? If not, then your rebuttal falls short of the mark.
Face it, this is a serious issue for software developers. If iPhone sales are going to be limited to the young, well, that market is already saturated and the declining birthrate doesn't bode well. Apple needs to expand it's market to those people who are current users and that means the elderly. If, for whatever reason, they find the interface confusing, then it won't sell.
The challenge will be to redesign the interface so new users adopt it but not to alienate the current installed base.
Any manufacturer also has to have a license to operate; it is called a business license.
A manufacturing plant is an ongoing business while a building renovation is not therefore the building permit comparison is invalid.
Are you concerned with the fact that an inspection is taking place or the people who are doing the inspection.
What most people in this discussion miss is that it is a business being inspected and not a private home.
Law enforcement still needs a warrant to search a place of business, other than public areas. See, the thing is, when businesses are searched, it is individuals that are charged. Those individuals have rights, whether in a place of business or not. Of course, if another employee lets the police in, then they do not need a warrant. Think how much more efficient it would be if businesses, say warehouses, could be searched without a warrant. Efficiency at the price of violating basic rights, that is.
From the article:
"Under current law, "reproducing" and "distributing" copyrighted works are felony charges and cover P2P transfers and Web downloads. But streaming is a "public performance" rather than a "distribution"—and holding a public performance without a proper license is not a felony. S. 978 adds "public performance" to the felony list."
Current existing law makes p2p of a copyrighted work a felony, but this new law adds streaming. Like that site megavideos streams shows that is probably shouldn't. It is news to me that bitorrenting things is currently a felony.....
Under current law reproducing and distributing copyrighted works could be a felony charge, but most often is handled with a civil suit, which has a significantly lower burden of proof than a criminal charge. And when charged with it criminally, it is usually a misdemeanor, not a felony.
hence the (initially) part of the statement. Once the viruses and malware are compiled for ARM, then its back to business as usual.
But would not Windows 3.1 be "the first full-bodied version of Windows that won't (initially) be susceptible to viruses and malware...?" Not being susceptible because the virus has not been rewritten really means that it is susceptible out of the box.
Does a health inspector need a warrant to search a restaurant or food plant?
Does a BATF inspector need a warrant to search a distillery?
Does a safety inspector need a warrant to search a manufacturing plant?
In all these cases the answer is no. They can freely inspect commercial establishments to ensure the companies are following the law.
Equating this to random searches of houses is FUD.
Actually, restaurants and distilleries receive licenses from the government to operate and part of the license agreement allows for inspections. Federal law allows OSHA to come inspect a manufacturing plant. However, the police cannot come and do the same without a warrant.
Now if the duplication of the disks falls under the hazards that OSHA is responsible for protecting workers against, then OSHA can inspect without a warrant, but no else can.
Just like when your new house is being built, the building inspector can come and inspect it whenever they want. After it is built, they can't.
If they truly want to crack down on illegal duplication of CDs and DVDs, they need to look at South East Asia, not South Central LA. Of course that would make it a State Department issue and not a 4th amendment issue, as California doesn't have any jurisdiction over other countries.