No matter how Apple fanboys twist reality, bricking a phone is yet another way how Apple rapes their user base. It goes to show that no matter how you abuse your customers, great PR fixes everything.
I think it shows how most customers aren't interested in modifying their equipment. That said, as phones become more PC-like, Apple could find itself losing out to more open competitors if 3rd parties create enough "killer" apps.
The rule of law is that of what seems reasonable to an adult, and that people who pay hundreds of dollars for a non-subsidized device can have it bricked by the manufacturer carrying on as if they still own the phone is plainly not reasonable.
Apple cannot know every single method individuals use to modify their phone, it it reasonable to expect them to support every single hack?
And then America got their ass in gear and realized that science is important and started a program that vastly improved science education and learning science became the "cool" thing to do.
It wasn't about cool, it was about patriotism and fear. If communism was "superior" then other countries might adopt it; not to mention the strategic benefits of putting stuff in space like cameras, nuclear weapons, etc.
Teamwork comes naturally and doen't have to be taught. On the job, your manager gives you part of a project to do and tells you who to talk with to interface with the rest of the project. That talking is where teamwork comes in; you get a glimpse of other portions of the project, and if you can see deficiencies in other places you discuss them (and vice-versa for others looking at your portion). No particular courage needed.
Teamwork comes naturally, but you need experience. The biggest problem most fresh out of college workers have is they haven't had enough experiences in a team environment.
Teamwork isn't just about "lets hold hands and sing," the most important part of teamwork is handling conflict. Where new grads falter, is when they are in a meeting and somebody directly challenges them. Engineers are smart, they've probably gone through school and almost always been right; and in those situations where they have the wrong answer usually the teacher shows them what was incorrect. Rarely is a student in college put on the spot to defend their correct answer. In these situations its essential to have both a full understanding from a technical perspective, as well as the awareness of how to communicate and handle the social situation.
I've seen very intelligent engineers picked apart to the point of crying because they lacked the ability to clearly communicate and handle the social situation.
But what about interest in knowledge and the subject matter? Is that a fringe aspect for americans?
No, those things can be accomplished while working in industry. Work & study are not mutually exclusive. From personal experience, I appreciate learning in an applied engineering environment rather than the theory of academia.
Because Engineering is hard. Our precious little snowflakes are growing up so pampered from real difficulty or challenge that something like a Masters in Engineering is out of their league.
It's not difficulty its opportunity. Most Americans who get undergraduate engineering degrees don't continue their education because there are plenty of entry level jobs available.
It's a matter of economics, are you going to invest that much money and time in something when significant portions of the grad level work is being exported out of the country?
The problem with your logic is that many foreign grad students want to remain in the US to work after graduation. There are many excellent technical colleges outside of the US for students looking to earn degrees and remain in their country. Foreign workers who want to work in the US find it easier to get an H1B with a US graduate degree.
Which would you rather have? A shiny new Maglev or 2-weeks of war.
A maglev will provide what an hour of TV viewing, maybe 2 if you include the Discovery Channel "making of the maglev." Now 2 weeks of war will fill up all the news channels 23 hours a day (1 hour a day for lindsay lohan/brittney/misc DUI moviestar).
The vast majority of readers, even with college education, most likely lack a good grasp of the modern math where science runs.
The majority of scientific discovery is so far removed from any core learning that even highly educated people in another discipline won't be able to fully grasp it. A chemist won't be able to understand the implications of a new discovery in astrophysics without first learning a huge amount of background knowledge.
It isn't the math that is the problem. When I read scientific papers in my field often times I understand what is going on without fully analyzing the math included. Because I have a similar background I've seen the equations before, and can follow the author's process. Somebody who doesn't share the same background would never have seen the equations; they can do the math, but without the background knowledge they have no idea what it implies.
The fact of the matter is, if you probe the mind of the average person in an industrialized nation today, you'll find an ASTOUNDING lack of caring about anything intellectual.
You'll find that even non-average people have an ASTOUNDING lack of caring about anything intellectual they don't participate in. Not many IT geeks jump at the chance to attend a conference on sociology.
There's no need to consider carefully the workings of the world, so they don't.
Perhaps they are considering different aspects of how the world works. Some view the world focusing on opportunities to make money, others look to opportunties to aid others.
That's also not true. The problem isn't that Joe Blow can't grasp it, but that he won't. If you don't give him a reason to read the big words, he'll turn on the football game and grab a beer
Just as if he's trying to explain proper tackling technique or a double eagle flex defense you'd just go back to playing Halo 3.
If the only thing you are concerned about is "why can't I buy this laptop for myself fo $199?" you probably don't understand the purpose of the project to begin with.
But there is a huge advantage in allowing anybody in the world to have access to the machine. Economy of scales in manufacturing, and more importantly increasing the number of developers. Purchasers in industrialized countries aren't just going to use the machines, they are going to also develop for it, creating new applications for everybody to use.
But society has changed. Due to the situation that America now finds itself in, I seriously doubt that you will see the majority of families will have the luxury to have one parent unemployed. In fact, it will be a very small minority within another 20 years, that can afford it.
Most families (with 2 parents) could afford it, they choose to not do so to sustain a certain lifestyle. You don't need to have the typical "stay at home mom," for parents to be involved in their child's education. There is plenty of time for interaction with your child, many parents choose to do sports, watch TV, or other non-educational activities during that free time. Also, many have detached themselves from the responisibility of education and passed it to the school, if their child is getting bad grades it's the schools fault.
Sorry , but many many more people at Xerox PARC did that much more and much earlier. Before you start regurgitating the Woz myth verbatim I suggest you go look up some of their achievments in GUIs and man-machine interaction before Apple was even a glint in Woz or Steves eye.
I wasn't referring to GUI, I was referring to the hardware hardware design.
Well, if you live in America, and don't work for the Department of Defense, then yes, those degrees are useless, seeing as how we don't innmovote, invent, or do R&D anymore.
What do you mean, that's all we do these days - why do you think Apple products say "Designed in California". We invent something and ship it off to China to be made. Unfortunately with an IP heavy economy we are at the mercy of foreign knock-offs.
By the way, I had been under the impression that engineering degrees were generally for people who wanted to make money (in a normal-ish job) after graduation, while sciences were for people who either wanted to be, or accepted the risk of being in academia for life. Is that not the case?
I recently was talking to a friend and we agreed, nobody works in physics. If you have a physics graduate degree you are in academia, if you have a physics undergrad degree you are doing something you picked up while learning physics (computer programming, statistical analysis, etc)
In the real world an engineering degree has a more direct translation, which makes getting a job easier. For example there are more jobs for a chemical engineer to work on chemical manufacturing and machine optimizations, than chemists working on synthesizing new chemicals.
He's he first man who built modern computer hardware, then personally wrote the software that ran on top of it, all the while providing an extensible hardware and software system that other engineers could (and did, wildly) build upon.
Many people were doing similar things at the time. The difference was how Wozniak went about engineering focusing on usability and openness. Rather than making personal computers an engineering device (something you make), he made them an engineering platform (something you use)
Pure coincidence? Going back to the example of Leisure Suit Larry, what do you think would happen if only particular retailers carried the game? Those retailers could advertise "You can only get it here!" and the retailers that refused to carry the game would lose business.
Video game stores are associated with children since they are the primary sales demographic. By selling AO games a retailer runs the risk of parents standing outside your store with signs saying "Gamestop peddles porn to kids." The risk to lost sales (parents stop bringing in their kids to buy Pokemon 19) is much greater than any marginal sales gains from Leisure suit Larry An AO game could find its way onto shelves, but it would have to be a high quality critically acclaimed piece of art. Most likely such a game would cause a review of the ratings system in the first place (ala Midnight Cowboy for the movie business)
A retailer's decision to not carry something that would otherwise be in demand must necessarily depend on what his competitors are doing.
Not necessarily, the retailer's decision is based on the market envrionment. There are many high selling games that aren't brought over from Japan and same applies to high selling US games not sold overseas.
Individually, yes, but what happens when they collude? There's a difference between individual retailers refusing to carry a product and all retailers refusing to carry a product.
There's a difference between all retailers individually making the decision not to carry a product, and all retailers working together to decide to not carry a product.
No, it's like every gas station refusing to sell a particular brand of bed. Because they all got together and decided they didn't like the bread you were selling and that it was best for "the children" that you not be able to sell it.
That is indeed collusion, however, that analogy may not apply. If there was a food scare and each retailer decided not to stock bread due to low demand and potential exposure to lawsuit it's not collusion. Retailers are hesitant to stock AO titles because the market is much smaller, fear of community backlash and bad PR, and risk of lawsuits.
Money doesn't disappear. And if the USD isn't worth anything that means something else is
Money isn't zero-sum, it reflects relative exchange rates. If the dollar falls it doesn't necessarily impact the relative exchange of other currencies against each other.
And whoever has the money will probably want luxuries.
Which opens up markets for US goods that didn't exist before.
Don't be surprised when "Made In The USA" is something that foreigners see on their clothing, etc one day.
The US doesn't have to decline precipitously for China, India, and other emerging markets to rise.
What you're saying is they're stuck with them. I disagree. They can find buyers (lets face it, it's a USA dollar. It will always be worth something) who will pay below market values for them. Others will do the same, creating a domino effect of devaluation of the dollar in circulation.
The problem with that is that China would be shooting itself in the foot, as they then destroy the economy of the main trading partner.
What goods are they buying? Do you know what China is doing with all the dollars they have? Stashing them away by buying USA t-bonds. They're not investing in American companies, they're funding the war on terror.
At the same time they are not investing in their own economy, so that if the US economy falters it will take China with it.
So with all these forces at work lowering the value of the dollar, the theory is big spenders like China are going to eventually say "screw the dollar, lets sell them now while they're worth something" setting off a chain reaction of dollars.
Sell them to who? They have to spend all those dollars they are holding on something, which would mean purchasing US goods.
Slashdot Mirror
That said, as phones become more PC-like, Apple could find itself losing out to more open competitors if 3rd parties create enough "killer" apps.
Teamwork isn't just about "lets hold hands and sing," the most important part of teamwork is handling conflict. Where new grads falter, is when they are in a meeting and somebody directly challenges them. Engineers are smart, they've probably gone through school and almost always been right; and in those situations where they have the wrong answer usually the teacher shows them what was incorrect. Rarely is a student in college put on the spot to defend their correct answer. In these situations its essential to have both a full understanding from a technical perspective, as well as the awareness of how to communicate and handle the social situation.
I've seen very intelligent engineers picked apart to the point of crying because they lacked the ability to clearly communicate and handle the social situation.
From personal experience, I appreciate learning in an applied engineering environment rather than the theory of academia.
Now 2 weeks of war will fill up all the news channels 23 hours a day (1 hour a day for lindsay lohan/brittney/misc DUI moviestar).
It isn't the math that is the problem. When I read scientific papers in my field often times I understand what is going on without fully analyzing the math included. Because I have a similar background I've seen the equations before, and can follow the author's process. Somebody who doesn't share the same background would never have seen the equations; they can do the math, but without the background knowledge they have no idea what it implies.
Perhaps they are considering different aspects of how the world works. Some view the world focusing on opportunities to make money, others look to opportunties to aid others.
Just as if he's trying to explain proper tackling technique or a double eagle flex defense you'd just go back to playing Halo 3.
You don't need to have the typical "stay at home mom," for parents to be involved in their child's education. There is plenty of time for interaction with your child, many parents choose to do sports, watch TV, or other non-educational activities during that free time. Also, many have detached themselves from the responisibility of education and passed it to the school, if their child is getting bad grades it's the schools fault.
The sellers can choose the standards, so long as they don't lock out competitors.
We invent something and ship it off to China to be made. Unfortunately with an IP heavy economy we are at the mercy of foreign knock-offs.
In the real world an engineering degree has a more direct translation, which makes getting a job easier. For example there are more jobs for a chemical engineer to work on chemical manufacturing and machine optimizations, than chemists working on synthesizing new chemicals.
An AO game could find its way onto shelves, but it would have to be a high quality critically acclaimed piece of art. Most likely such a game would cause a review of the ratings system in the first place (ala Midnight Cowboy for the movie business)
Not necessarily, the retailer's decision is based on the market envrionment. There are many high selling games that aren't brought over from Japan and same applies to high selling US games not sold overseas.
That is indeed collusion, however, that analogy may not apply. If there was a food scare and each retailer decided not to stock bread due to low demand and potential exposure to lawsuit it's not collusion. Retailers are hesitant to stock AO titles because the market is much smaller, fear of community backlash and bad PR, and risk of lawsuits.
Which opens up markets for US goods that didn't exist before.
The US doesn't have to decline precipitously for China, India, and other emerging markets to rise.
At the same time they are not investing in their own economy, so that if the US economy falters it will take China with it.