Are there no limits in the US? I mean, if they have 500% of the people they thought they would that's gonna be a bit of a pickle?
Colleges and universities can usually only take in so many people and will judge who gets in on various criteria. Test scores are a major one. Another is that if the school gets state funds, then they must give priorities to state residents. Letter of recommendation and other factors may play into things. Legacies where the students parent is alumni also matter. Still they can only take some many new students.
However, most of those new students are new and will all be taking freshmen level courses that are basically the same for everybody. After you get accepted into a school, you have to sign up for classes. Classes are first come first serve, so if they fill up, a student may have to take less or different classes than they want.
Many students will just sign up and get into the school as "undeclared" which means they haven't chosen their major yet. As the year goes on, they may declare a major as they see fit. It's probably possible to go about two or three years without ever declaring a major (but that's usually not the best for actually getting a degree unless you really have your shit together). As time goes on, a student may change degrees several times. So long as they don't change colleges which would change the base course they need to take, it's usually not an issue. I suspect what has happened is that the school let some many new students in, but then when they declared their major (which can happen at any time) they had five times as many students write down video game developer as expected.
If all those students stick with it, the school probably still have a year or two to increase the classes needed. Otherwise, most schools aren't beyond just letting it go to Darwinistic fight over who gets into the available classes which might force some students to change majors or take longer to get through school.
I'm just pointing out that the other solutions aren't quote trivial, not that they would hurt healthcare. It's your personal desire to sabotage the solution for no reason that would hurt healthcare.
in one of the comments, someone asked why didn't dude give it to the police.
Um, police isn't lost and found, and they have more serious work to even take time for something as stupid as that.
According to the California Civil Code, for items greater than $100, the police are lost and found apparently.
Copied from an earlier post above:
California law regulates what you can do when you find lost property in the state. Section 2080 of the Civil Code provides that any person who finds and takes charge of a lost item acts as "a depositary for the owner." If the true owner is known, the finder must notify him/her/it within a reasonable time and "make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property." Id. 2080. If the true owner is not known and the item is worth more than $100, then the finder has a duty to turn it over to the local police department within a reasonable time. Id. 2080.1. The owner then has 90 days to claim the property. Id. 2080.2. If the true owner fails to do so and the property is worth more than $250, then the police publish a notice, and 7 days after that ownership of the property vests in the person who found it, with certain exceptions. Id. 2080.3.
The idea of jury nullification is great when it's used on a law you don't agree with, not so much when it goes the other way. The reason that lynchers and other civil right abusers could get away with what they did in the 20's and 30's was because of jury nullification. The phrase "no jury will convict me" was speaking about jury nullification. As they could control who got on the juries and that those people had similar morals that did not agree with the law, they did not have to follow the law. Once society loses the rule of law, there's no reason to follow the law for anything. While I don't agree with a lot of laws and would even hazard that some laws are probably even objectively bad, it would be better to change the laws that rely upon jury nullification.
You are wrong. This is not "the only way." Another way to get off of IE6 is to create a "legacy application terminal server" which contains shit that you can't get rid of but don't want to have widely-deployed. Such a system should have tight security controls and should be very difficult to use (to encourage people to upgrade their apps).
No, it's not the only way. You could go to RDC, terminal server, Citrix, or some other solution, however it's not as easy as it seems. Some licenses forbid using on RDC servers and like manners (at least without paying more). You'll need more servers that will have more overhead, and then there are training issues and then you are still hoping it works the same way and some other issues don't pop up. As an enterprise wide solution, it's probably about as difficult and costly as upgrading the app to begin with.
And make it as "difficult to use" just to punish the users? Jesus dude! It's not like the users actually have any say in the issue. Do that at my work and congratulations, you've just hurt health care for a 500 bed hospital and level 1 trauma center for multiple states. Way to go. Advising the risk of killing people because you feel spiteful about what browser they have to use at work which is beyond their control.
Now claim that unpublished articles were on the seized computers and file a claim against Apple and have the police come in and seize their computers. That'll teach 'em.
If the phone really was left in a public place, Apple has no case.
It's not Apple's case. All they do is report the phone missing/stolen. It's up to the police to determine what action to take. From what I've read so far, CA's laws are much like WA's and it's not up to Apple whether to press charges or not, but completely up to the police.
Hmmm, maybe that's part of the problem? They never say no to anyone. Do all those companies really need all those IP blocks? Maybe if they had said "no" once in a while we'd have another year or so to work out how we'll get everyone over to IPv6.
Ya, I'm sure, especially since they haven't had any problems yet really, that they want to make their workload that much greater. Do you have any idea how much larger their job would be if they went from simply fulfilling requests to actually having to review them, judge them, deal with appeals and re-submissions, and then fulfill them?
They blamed the dead guy before he killed himself.
They had blamed several guys already, this one, was the one who got depressed and killed himself. Of course, that depends on your definition of blamed. No charges has been filed. People had just been investigated and labeled "person of interest".
Sure, because making a photo manipulation software to compete with Photoshop would be so much harder than developing film manipulation software like they did to steal the throne away from Premiere. At worst, they'd just buy some other company that had a good product and make it their own. Of course, that's what Adobe does also considering that Pagemaker, Framemaker, Dreamweaver, and Flash were all simply purchased from other companies and not developed in house at Adobe. In fact, Adobe has a bit of a habit of buying stuff and then sitting around on it doing nothing expecting their current domination in the market to carry them past all competition in the future.
True enough. It could even be that Aperture was a rushed effort to beat Lightroom out the door, although Aperture isn't anything more than a pro version of iPhoto in concept. The point is that this bit with Flash is not a surprise, especially the amount of intercompany communication that is supposed to be going on between Adobe and Apple. It's not really clear if they are trying to piss off each other or if this is just accepted business.
It would be very funny if Adobe, just for spite, decided to stop making it's high end graphic design products compatible with Apple hardware. And figured out a way to make them not work via virtualization on Apple hardware as well.
It would probably work about as well as MS deciding not to develop IE for the Mac any more or Adobe's earlier decision to skip development of Premiere for the Mac. Apple would just buy some company and put out their own version that would not only work but work the way they wanted it to. Apple learned a long time ago to not compete with their own developers, but after that, they also learned that if the developers aren't their own any more, to just do it them selves. Kill your app for the Mac and if Apple decides that it is needed, they will just provide a replacement themselves. If photoshop ever disappears for the Mac, I bet there will be an Apple photo editing suite out fairly quickly. Photoshop has it good because there is no real competition. Apple already has the basics down and RAW editing in Aperture. it would take some work to add in filters, masks, cutting paths, etc, but I imagine they could probably do it.
Adobe discontinue all their software suites for the mac and change their updaters to uninstall everything remotely and everyone is very sad.
Next step? It's not like Adobe hasn't already been doing this for years. They canceled Framemaker for Mac despite it being a better seller on the Mac than PC. They killed Premiere but that was after Apple came out with FCP since Premiere on the Mac sucked so bad. Then putting out Lightroom after Apple came out with Aperture. Even Flash. They really haven't done anything with it on the Mac side since they got it from Macromedia. Development has been lagging on the Mac side (and even worse for Linux). Perhaps if Adobe had been paying attention to it and actually supporting it, Apple might not have decided they didn't want it so quickly.
For that matter, it's not like they have a real copy of Flash for any phone yet, let alone the iPhone. Even if Apple hadn't had prevented it, there's no real garantee it would be anything but vaporware yet. At best, there would be some Lite version that wouldn't do much and whose performance would lag behind even the Linux version of Flash. My suggestion to Adobe is that if they really want Flash as an iApp, then concentrate on the Android OS. Put out a really good version of Flash for that platform, show that it can work, and that it isn't going to be some half assed job, then maybe Apple will reconsider, especially if it becomes a selling point for the Droid.
Can we all please stop making apps, and start making web-apps?
Funny enough, that's what Jobs told everybody to do to begin with when the iPhone came out. Only after much bitching and gnashing of teeth did they get an SDK and the app store.
IME, they might be discounts, but they are discounts off of the 'suggested retail price' sort of thing. I ran into the same thing, talking to the airlines with a copy of my grandmother's death certificate in hand (a requirement for such a discount) didn't rate a fare that could compete with Expedia or Priceline. It might have been better than what they would charge me normally, but it was not any sort of real discount. Much like how Adobe sells their products for much more than their resellers do (from when I last worked for them anyway). Probably for the same reason, they probably just don't try and compete with their resellers. Back in the day, it might have been better, especially if showing up at the airport needing a plane 'right now'. Today, with all the various online resellers and networks or travel agencies that are probably trying to dump tickets they have reserved for at cost if they still are unsold, I doubt if there is any way the airline could or would compete.
Are there any conflicts with the Einstein Field Equations as this would suggest?
Doubtful, however this probably would allow for some guess at bounding values for several parts of the Drake Equation values*. Not only for star formation but the lack of star formation would mean less high elements which would mean less planets capable of supporting life (ie rocky planets). The lack of supernova also influences later star formation IIRC as the supernova shockwaves help jump start the next generation of star formation as well as provide elements higher than helium.
*ya, ya, the Drake Equation is for our galaxy but we can apply it to other galaxies also.
The cessation of star-making is not the same as the cessation of life. It might be good for life. It might be bad. All we really know right now is that this has not happened to the Milky Way galaxy, so we have a sample of one where it did not occur.
The cessation of star-making is pretty much the same as the cessation of life. Without stars there will be no supernovas. Without supernovas, there will be no elements higher than the occasional helium atom. Unless we come up with a way to make a life form out of pure hydrogen, the lack of stars pretty much means the lack of life.
Too bad for US corps, we have this law here called The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that makes it illegal to bribe foreign officials.
Which effectively prevents a US corp from doing business in many countries if held to, including Mexico, Russia, China, etc. It is not more meant to be obeyed than the laws against bribery in the nations where bribery is the de facto method of doing business. It's just a hammer for somebody to use if you piss off somebody. You go to China but you can't do business unless you pay the bribes but if you (or the person you paid the bribes to) ever piss off the wrong person in government, then they'll hit you with those bribes they demanded. Then the US government will go "gosh, we can't support that", and the hit you with their hammer too as a form of appeasement to various parties. Just like many of the laws in the US and the powers passed after 9-11, they expect you to break something, simply because they want to have something to use against you if they need the excuse.
How many more virtually content-free articles are we going to get about the damn iPhone and iPad?
As many as it takes for people to stop reading and posting to them. They generate a lot of reading and posting on/., so they'll keep seeing them till they don't.
This reminds me of when GUI's were new in the mid 80's, all the elitist jerks who fancied themselves to be high-caliber nerds loudly proclaiming that it was all a gay bullshit fad, etc., ad nauseum. Lemme ask you guys, any chance we'll get a humble redaction if it turns out you are completely and utterly wrong about this?
Yep, I remember those days. I've been a Mac lover since my mechanical drawing teacher brought one to class in '85. I remember DOS users making fun of them because they used 3.5" floppies when 5.25" were everywhere and near free. I remember them making fun of the mouse because it was a gimmick. I remember them making fun of the GUI because it did nothing but take up resources. I remember them making fun of dual monitor setups because nobody except a few professional users need that sort of thing. I remember them making fun of dropping the 3.5" floppy because everybody use them for everything. I remember them making fun of switching to USB because there were no devices except the Mac keyboard and mouse and two cameras that used it.
Personally, I think there need to realistically be three things, in proper order
A place people like to live
Universities
Military and research installations
I think you're correct, but perhaps not in the right order. Encouraging the development of high tech is harder than most cities think as they have found out. I think it was Nashville that did a lot of research into the subject. They thought they could simply lower the financial cost to high tech companies for operating in the city and they would come, but it turned out it was harder than that. Even when the companies did come, they had nobody to work for them. The simple fact was that workers decide where they want to live and move there first, and then look for a job. A certain percentage will follow the jobs, but they are not the majority. So, to get the high tech companies, you need a city that highly educated 20-somethings want to live in which includes things like a thriving night life, the Arts, etc.
Universities are probably first in this list because they create the ideal high tech workers to begin with. They are already there, so after that, you need to form an environment they want to continue to live in. You need a nightlife, activities, and culture that such people, when looking for a place to move to, will decide to remain where they are first rather than move to San Francisco, Seattle, etc. as most have not had kids and settled down yet. Even those that have still look at their quality of life as more than pay and housing. I've had plenty of friends, with families, who when given the chance because of job offers of living decently in a metropolitan area with plenty of things to do or living like kings in a more backwater area with less things that interest them, have chosen to live decently rather than like kings.
"These phones have no downloadable apps, no games, not even a calendar. They're not meant to be expandable smart phones; instead very good messaging phones."
Nice job, Microsoft. Way to ignore the growing trends in favor of your own way. After all, you certainly know better than those lousy consumers.
In all fairness, though, they'll probably sell like hotcakes in the niche market they're designed for. I just don't see it as a very big market.
Actually, it's probably a good move for the same reasons that the iPhone was a good move. Smartphones, while growing still aren't the majority of the market. Lots of people want "just a phone". Kids, however, want messaging, but the parents that pay for it probably don't want smart phone fees or for that matter, connection to the internet. There was a story on/. just yesterday by a parent asking how to filter his teenage kids access to the internet. It seems like a perfectly valid market that is probably no more niche than smartphones. Not everybody needs or wants a smart phone, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who want a messaging phone. I think the real test will be if it followed good design and they are indeed "very good messaging phones."
Apple gadget. Linux gadget. Apple gadget. Linux gadget. Apple gadget. Linux gadget.
What one should I like?!?!?!::head explodes::
First, go see which ones are actually out or at least have a delivery date and don't look like vaporware. Then, check them out. Read the reviews. Ask about them to your friends who have them. Even go to a store and try using them a bit. Decide which one has the features you want to use and go with that one.
Of course, if you were a true/.er you'd always go with the Linux gadget, and if it didn't have the features you wanted just write them yourself and submit your source.
Did anybody really think they wouldn't? Seriously, who was not expecting everybody who made an iPhone imitator not to make an iPad imitator? MS has already revamped and trying to re-advertise their tablet offerings. Still, I don't think what they get is that what they need is really not a tablet with WinOS, but a touch screen slate with a better OS designed to do what the device is supposed to do. I expect Android to come out with a larger version of the Droid. Since Palm is up for sale, I guess they probably won't come up with something any time soon. Who I do see jumping into the competition will be Amazon and other book reader manufacturers who will try and capitalize on the iPad sales as well as from having them cannibalize their own sales.
Despite being a Mac fan, I think this if fine and good. I like Mac products because they put time and efforts into their designs, not simply because they have an Apple on the side. Let's see the competition. Let's see Flash on a Droid. Let's see open source app competition for other products. Let's see some fresh and new ideas incorporated into new products that others haven't tried before. Let's see everybody have to put some time and effort into their devices and raise the bar a little with every release. Apple may be my first choice, but it certainly isn't my final choice. If another product is better and suits my needs, I will switch.
The models are under pressure not to detract from the clothes. For fashion photography, the models are pretty much simply living hangers. The are there to make the clothes look good, not the other way around. If you want to women that look good, you would be in glamour photography. I doubt you'd find too many anorexic glamour models, but that is because the subject of the photo is the women, not the clothing. Sure, they could shoot fashion photography like they shoot glamor, but then the focus would be on the women and not the clothing, the thing that they are trying to sell. When complaining about fashion models, you are simply confusing the frame for the picture.
Slashdot Mirror
Colleges and universities can usually only take in so many people and will judge who gets in on various criteria. Test scores are a major one. Another is that if the school gets state funds, then they must give priorities to state residents. Letter of recommendation and other factors may play into things. Legacies where the students parent is alumni also matter. Still they can only take some many new students.
However, most of those new students are new and will all be taking freshmen level courses that are basically the same for everybody. After you get accepted into a school, you have to sign up for classes. Classes are first come first serve, so if they fill up, a student may have to take less or different classes than they want.
Many students will just sign up and get into the school as "undeclared" which means they haven't chosen their major yet. As the year goes on, they may declare a major as they see fit. It's probably possible to go about two or three years without ever declaring a major (but that's usually not the best for actually getting a degree unless you really have your shit together). As time goes on, a student may change degrees several times. So long as they don't change colleges which would change the base course they need to take, it's usually not an issue. I suspect what has happened is that the school let some many new students in, but then when they declared their major (which can happen at any time) they had five times as many students write down video game developer as expected.
If all those students stick with it, the school probably still have a year or two to increase the classes needed. Otherwise, most schools aren't beyond just letting it go to Darwinistic fight over who gets into the available classes which might force some students to change majors or take longer to get through school.
I'm just pointing out that the other solutions aren't quote trivial, not that they would hurt healthcare. It's your personal desire to sabotage the solution for no reason that would hurt healthcare.
According to the California Civil Code, for items greater than $100, the police are lost and found apparently.
Copied from an earlier post above:
The idea of jury nullification is great when it's used on a law you don't agree with, not so much when it goes the other way. The reason that lynchers and other civil right abusers could get away with what they did in the 20's and 30's was because of jury nullification. The phrase "no jury will convict me" was speaking about jury nullification. As they could control who got on the juries and that those people had similar morals that did not agree with the law, they did not have to follow the law. Once society loses the rule of law, there's no reason to follow the law for anything. While I don't agree with a lot of laws and would even hazard that some laws are probably even objectively bad, it would be better to change the laws that rely upon jury nullification.
No, it's not the only way. You could go to RDC, terminal server, Citrix, or some other solution, however it's not as easy as it seems. Some licenses forbid using on RDC servers and like manners (at least without paying more). You'll need more servers that will have more overhead, and then there are training issues and then you are still hoping it works the same way and some other issues don't pop up. As an enterprise wide solution, it's probably about as difficult and costly as upgrading the app to begin with.
And make it as "difficult to use" just to punish the users? Jesus dude! It's not like the users actually have any say in the issue. Do that at my work and congratulations, you've just hurt health care for a 500 bed hospital and level 1 trauma center for multiple states. Way to go. Advising the risk of killing people because you feel spiteful about what browser they have to use at work which is beyond their control.
It's not Apple's case. All they do is report the phone missing/stolen. It's up to the police to determine what action to take. From what I've read so far, CA's laws are much like WA's and it's not up to Apple whether to press charges or not, but completely up to the police.
Ya, I'm sure, especially since they haven't had any problems yet really, that they want to make their workload that much greater. Do you have any idea how much larger their job would be if they went from simply fulfilling requests to actually having to review them, judge them, deal with appeals and re-submissions, and then fulfill them?
They had blamed several guys already, this one, was the one who got depressed and killed himself. Of course, that depends on your definition of blamed. No charges has been filed. People had just been investigated and labeled "person of interest".
Sure, because making a photo manipulation software to compete with Photoshop would be so much harder than developing film manipulation software like they did to steal the throne away from Premiere. At worst, they'd just buy some other company that had a good product and make it their own. Of course, that's what Adobe does also considering that Pagemaker, Framemaker, Dreamweaver, and Flash were all simply purchased from other companies and not developed in house at Adobe. In fact, Adobe has a bit of a habit of buying stuff and then sitting around on it doing nothing expecting their current domination in the market to carry them past all competition in the future.
Are you saying I'm an insensitive clod? Well Sir, you must be new here!
True enough. It could even be that Aperture was a rushed effort to beat Lightroom out the door, although Aperture isn't anything more than a pro version of iPhoto in concept. The point is that this bit with Flash is not a surprise, especially the amount of intercompany communication that is supposed to be going on between Adobe and Apple. It's not really clear if they are trying to piss off each other or if this is just accepted business.
It would probably work about as well as MS deciding not to develop IE for the Mac any more or Adobe's earlier decision to skip development of Premiere for the Mac. Apple would just buy some company and put out their own version that would not only work but work the way they wanted it to. Apple learned a long time ago to not compete with their own developers, but after that, they also learned that if the developers aren't their own any more, to just do it them selves. Kill your app for the Mac and if Apple decides that it is needed, they will just provide a replacement themselves. If photoshop ever disappears for the Mac, I bet there will be an Apple photo editing suite out fairly quickly. Photoshop has it good because there is no real competition. Apple already has the basics down and RAW editing in Aperture. it would take some work to add in filters, masks, cutting paths, etc, but I imagine they could probably do it.
Next step? It's not like Adobe hasn't already been doing this for years. They canceled Framemaker for Mac despite it being a better seller on the Mac than PC. They killed Premiere but that was after Apple came out with FCP since Premiere on the Mac sucked so bad. Then putting out Lightroom after Apple came out with Aperture. Even Flash. They really haven't done anything with it on the Mac side since they got it from Macromedia. Development has been lagging on the Mac side (and even worse for Linux). Perhaps if Adobe had been paying attention to it and actually supporting it, Apple might not have decided they didn't want it so quickly.
For that matter, it's not like they have a real copy of Flash for any phone yet, let alone the iPhone. Even if Apple hadn't had prevented it, there's no real garantee it would be anything but vaporware yet. At best, there would be some Lite version that wouldn't do much and whose performance would lag behind even the Linux version of Flash. My suggestion to Adobe is that if they really want Flash as an iApp, then concentrate on the Android OS. Put out a really good version of Flash for that platform, show that it can work, and that it isn't going to be some half assed job, then maybe Apple will reconsider, especially if it becomes a selling point for the Droid.
Funny enough, that's what Jobs told everybody to do to begin with when the iPhone came out. Only after much bitching and gnashing of teeth did they get an SDK and the app store.
IME, they might be discounts, but they are discounts off of the 'suggested retail price' sort of thing. I ran into the same thing, talking to the airlines with a copy of my grandmother's death certificate in hand (a requirement for such a discount) didn't rate a fare that could compete with Expedia or Priceline. It might have been better than what they would charge me normally, but it was not any sort of real discount. Much like how Adobe sells their products for much more than their resellers do (from when I last worked for them anyway). Probably for the same reason, they probably just don't try and compete with their resellers. Back in the day, it might have been better, especially if showing up at the airport needing a plane 'right now'. Today, with all the various online resellers and networks or travel agencies that are probably trying to dump tickets they have reserved for at cost if they still are unsold, I doubt if there is any way the airline could or would compete.
Doubtful, however this probably would allow for some guess at bounding values for several parts of the Drake Equation values*. Not only for star formation but the lack of star formation would mean less high elements which would mean less planets capable of supporting life (ie rocky planets). The lack of supernova also influences later star formation IIRC as the supernova shockwaves help jump start the next generation of star formation as well as provide elements higher than helium.
*ya, ya, the Drake Equation is for our galaxy but we can apply it to other galaxies also.
The cessation of star-making is pretty much the same as the cessation of life. Without stars there will be no supernovas. Without supernovas, there will be no elements higher than the occasional helium atom. Unless we come up with a way to make a life form out of pure hydrogen, the lack of stars pretty much means the lack of life.
Which effectively prevents a US corp from doing business in many countries if held to, including Mexico, Russia, China, etc. It is not more meant to be obeyed than the laws against bribery in the nations where bribery is the de facto method of doing business. It's just a hammer for somebody to use if you piss off somebody. You go to China but you can't do business unless you pay the bribes but if you (or the person you paid the bribes to) ever piss off the wrong person in government, then they'll hit you with those bribes they demanded. Then the US government will go "gosh, we can't support that", and the hit you with their hammer too as a form of appeasement to various parties. Just like many of the laws in the US and the powers passed after 9-11, they expect you to break something, simply because they want to have something to use against you if they need the excuse.
How many more virtually content-free articles are we going to get about the damn iPhone and iPad?
As many as it takes for people to stop reading and posting to them. They generate a lot of reading and posting on /., so they'll keep seeing them till they don't.
This reminds me of when GUI's were new in the mid 80's, all the elitist jerks who fancied themselves to be high-caliber nerds loudly proclaiming that it was all a gay bullshit fad, etc., ad nauseum. Lemme ask you guys, any chance we'll get a humble redaction if it turns out you are completely and utterly wrong about this?
Yep, I remember those days. I've been a Mac lover since my mechanical drawing teacher brought one to class in '85. I remember DOS users making fun of them because they used 3.5" floppies when 5.25" were everywhere and near free. I remember them making fun of the mouse because it was a gimmick. I remember them making fun of the GUI because it did nothing but take up resources. I remember them making fun of dual monitor setups because nobody except a few professional users need that sort of thing. I remember them making fun of dropping the 3.5" floppy because everybody use them for everything. I remember them making fun of switching to USB because there were no devices except the Mac keyboard and mouse and two cameras that used it.
Yep, no bitterness in my heart.
Personally, I think there need to realistically be three things, in proper order
A place people like to live
Universities
Military and research installations
I think you're correct, but perhaps not in the right order. Encouraging the development of high tech is harder than most cities think as they have found out. I think it was Nashville that did a lot of research into the subject. They thought they could simply lower the financial cost to high tech companies for operating in the city and they would come, but it turned out it was harder than that. Even when the companies did come, they had nobody to work for them. The simple fact was that workers decide where they want to live and move there first, and then look for a job. A certain percentage will follow the jobs, but they are not the majority. So, to get the high tech companies, you need a city that highly educated 20-somethings want to live in which includes things like a thriving night life, the Arts, etc.
Universities are probably first in this list because they create the ideal high tech workers to begin with. They are already there, so after that, you need to form an environment they want to continue to live in. You need a nightlife, activities, and culture that such people, when looking for a place to move to, will decide to remain where they are first rather than move to San Francisco, Seattle, etc. as most have not had kids and settled down yet. Even those that have still look at their quality of life as more than pay and housing. I've had plenty of friends, with families, who when given the chance because of job offers of living decently in a metropolitan area with plenty of things to do or living like kings in a more backwater area with less things that interest them, have chosen to live decently rather than like kings.
"These phones have no downloadable apps, no games, not even a calendar. They're not meant to be expandable smart phones; instead very good messaging phones."
Nice job, Microsoft. Way to ignore the growing trends in favor of your own way. After all, you certainly know better than those lousy consumers.
In all fairness, though, they'll probably sell like hotcakes in the niche market they're designed for. I just don't see it as a very big market.
Actually, it's probably a good move for the same reasons that the iPhone was a good move. Smartphones, while growing still aren't the majority of the market. Lots of people want "just a phone". Kids, however, want messaging, but the parents that pay for it probably don't want smart phone fees or for that matter, connection to the internet. There was a story on /. just yesterday by a parent asking how to filter his teenage kids access to the internet. It seems like a perfectly valid market that is probably no more niche than smartphones. Not everybody needs or wants a smart phone, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who want a messaging phone. I think the real test will be if it followed good design and they are indeed "very good messaging phones."
Apple gadget. Linux gadget. Apple gadget. Linux gadget. Apple gadget. Linux gadget. ::head explodes::
What one should I like?!?!?!
First, go see which ones are actually out or at least have a delivery date and don't look like vaporware. Then, check them out. Read the reviews. Ask about them to your friends who have them. Even go to a store and try using them a bit. Decide which one has the features you want to use and go with that one.
Of course, if you were a true /.er you'd always go with the Linux gadget, and if it didn't have the features you wanted just write them yourself and submit your source.
Did anybody really think they wouldn't? Seriously, who was not expecting everybody who made an iPhone imitator not to make an iPad imitator? MS has already revamped and trying to re-advertise their tablet offerings. Still, I don't think what they get is that what they need is really not a tablet with WinOS, but a touch screen slate with a better OS designed to do what the device is supposed to do. I expect Android to come out with a larger version of the Droid. Since Palm is up for sale, I guess they probably won't come up with something any time soon. Who I do see jumping into the competition will be Amazon and other book reader manufacturers who will try and capitalize on the iPad sales as well as from having them cannibalize their own sales.
Despite being a Mac fan, I think this if fine and good. I like Mac products because they put time and efforts into their designs, not simply because they have an Apple on the side. Let's see the competition. Let's see Flash on a Droid. Let's see open source app competition for other products. Let's see some fresh and new ideas incorporated into new products that others haven't tried before. Let's see everybody have to put some time and effort into their devices and raise the bar a little with every release. Apple may be my first choice, but it certainly isn't my final choice. If another product is better and suits my needs, I will switch.
The models are under pressure not to detract from the clothes. For fashion photography, the models are pretty much simply living hangers. The are there to make the clothes look good, not the other way around. If you want to women that look good, you would be in glamour photography. I doubt you'd find too many anorexic glamour models, but that is because the subject of the photo is the women, not the clothing. Sure, they could shoot fashion photography like they shoot glamor, but then the focus would be on the women and not the clothing, the thing that they are trying to sell. When complaining about fashion models, you are simply confusing the frame for the picture.