I've never worked there, but I suspect that making software naming decisions after a night of smoking weed and watching Pulp Fiction is probably not the kind of thing they do over at Adobe.
No, marketing seems to go to work after a week long bender on ketamine, Red Bull and Everclear. That is the only way I can square their upgrade / crossgrade strategies and their predilection for putting customer service centers in Non English speaking countries.
1. Careful characterization of a poster who, in reality, does have an inflammatory nic. jockm didn't call Dishevel out on it nor even resort to sarcasm. It was a pretty neutral description of a highly emotional subject.
2. Reasonable explanation of why GIMP isn't such a good name.
3. Pretty mild closing statement.
Somebody with mod points is getting their panties jumbled a bit too fast, methinks.
Oh, and to further go into AM pedant mode - I would not characterize the RBCs found in Otzi as 'intact' using any typical definition of the word. "Not completely trashed and identifiable by complex, detailed molecular analysis" would be closer.
About this article. At least I'm not. Yes, they found some secondary evidence of blood cells which presumably helps forensic analysis in some unspecified way. The authors don't think Otzi exsanguinated immediately because they found, again secondary, evidence of something-that-could-be-fibrin. Fibrin is found in blood clots so they assumption is that he lived long enough for his clotting system to figure out that something bad was happening and it ought to try and do something about it.
Although hardly an expert in Neolithic spear damage analysis, I wouldn't expect someone speared to just keel over and die in a couple of breaths like one sees on TV. Even if he bled out over 20 minutes or so, I would expect some (ineffective) clot formation.
So, I'm missing the point (so to speak) of this. Does forensic science care if you can find evidence of blood in a 5000 year old really, really cold case? Does this help in more contemporary case work? I'd be more impressed if they could pull off specific biochemical markers off the red cells - like blood types or similar markers.
but at what point will there be sufficient incentive to allow for this behavior to be investigated as anti-competitive?
You answered your own question -
I know that a shopper could always choose to go another platform...
Anti trust laws are not intended to punish companies for being dickwads. That's perfectly legal. It's not some magic shiny sword to have the government swoop in on business practices that you don't like. As you point out, you can drop Apple from your life in complete assurance that you can back up your data, sync your contacts and play Angry Birds without a hitch.
At least with Dropbox, it makes little strategic difference (other than being a jump ahead if Dropbox drops out suddenly). All your data is on one or more hard drives. If Dropbox goes titsup, you just sign up with whoever is left standing and resync.
The only other bit of aggrevation would be dealing with the other services that use Dropbox as a portable storage medium - like 1password - and using another service to duplicate it's functionality.
That's why I think this model is just the best thing that's happened since the Palm Pilot. Data pretty much anywhere. I'd be more worried about having the same data in multiple repositories. I'd screw it up and delete or modify the wrong copy and you'd have a major annoyance keeping everything normalized.
Give me a break. There are NO, repeat NO medical devices that require constant wireless communication with anything. Otherwise, people would simply keel over in the various Faraday cages that we surround ourselves with throughout the day.
You could always find a Fox News article on the joys of chronic radiation exposure to fair and balance us. Post it to the Firehose.
Yes, the Bulletin on Atomic Scientists is anti nuclear but I'd hardly call them 'rabid'. You're not going to find a neutral point of view in this debate (and the article discusses this with a distinct slant), but it is still worth a read rather than an automatic dismissal.
Here, I'll make you feel better. Barium is used as a contrast agent. It blocks the xray so that it creates a shadow where the barium is located (like in your gut). It's not radioactive in and of itself.
That was pretty much the point of TFA. The most important factoid that comes from TFA is that the previously considered 'safe' value of 0.1 Sv DOESN'T drop down in the noise - there are excess cancers that can be discerned in published data at that level AND that the average medical radiation burden in developed countries is approaching that 0.1 Sv level.
Therefore, the combination of business as usual for medical radiation AND increased man made exposure from reactor leaks, bombs, spills and other detritus of the nuclear power industry would be additive above baseline. You might have what is thought to be a 'small' spill that turns out to have larger medical consequences than previously thought.
I've got a better idea. Let's get NK to put transponders on their ICBMs! We could offer them a couple of hundred tons of rice for each transponder. Win-WIn!
It's not Al Qaeda, it's the next Suddam, Iran, or NoKo to come along. The tech only gets easier and cheaper over time, and will be in reach for smaller state actors before much longer IMO.
Really - who?
Even basic ballistic missile tech is hard. Saddam could barely launch SCUDs which they bought from Russia. India is just getting off boosters that qualify as ICBMs (barely). And that's a huge, technologically advanced country. Iran has some theatre capable missiles and again, the barest ICBM level capability. Another fairly advanced nation. Then there is the problem of the warhead. Tossing rocks across continents may look impressive, but strategically it's nonsensical.
So our fascination with the idjits in Pyongyang notwithstanding, there isn't much of a strategic need for ICBM level defense at this time. Unless you think we can create enough of functional shield to significantly degrade a Chinese or Russian strike.
Given the limited amount of defense funding available, it's better to work on some more realistic weapons and perhaps some basic research into alternative resources like oil (which is the basic reason for much of the dick waving these days).
The trick for Apple would be to figure out how to control all the little this-and-that things without dealing with the nitty gritty of the device itself. As you point out, they will never manage to cajole the hundreds of vendors involved in refrigerators, TVs, lights, AC etc. into going the Apple way.
OTOH, Microsoft won't be able to do that either - it's just too many vendors dealing with too many things that don't have much value (eg. light switches). Unless somebody comes out with a real 'standard' it ain't gonna happen.
He's having it built by a government-owned shipyard in China. One that has never built a passenger ship. Jinling builds large single-engine tankers, container ships, and RORO (roll-on, roll-off) vessels. Five shipyards in Finland, France, Italy, Germany, and South Korea build most of the passenger ships in the world, and Jinling isn't one of them.
This might not be as far fetched a decision as it first sounds.
Having experience with large Container ships and RORO's is perfect engineering practice for the dealing with the unique, shall we say, attributes, of the average American passenger.
It's a major hardware, software integration issue. And this is exactly why Apple will be the first to solve the problem, not Microsoft. All except the 'dystopian surveillance nightmare part' - that will be a feature, not a bug.
Slashdot Mirror
If their logo was a ball gag, I think a Lot more people would use it.
You're hanging out with the wrong crowd again...
I've never worked there, but I suspect that making software naming decisions after a night of smoking weed and watching Pulp Fiction is probably not the kind of thing they do over at Adobe.
No, marketing seems to go to work after a week long bender on ketamine, Red Bull and Everclear. That is the only way I can square their upgrade / crossgrade strategies and their predilection for putting customer service centers in Non English speaking countries.
Troll mod, eh?
1. Careful characterization of a poster who, in reality, does have an inflammatory nic. jockm didn't call Dishevel out on it nor even resort to sarcasm. It was a pretty neutral description of a highly emotional subject.
2. Reasonable explanation of why GIMP isn't such a good name.
3. Pretty mild closing statement.
Somebody with mod points is getting their panties jumbled a bit too fast, methinks.
Oh, and to further go into AM pedant mode - I would not characterize the RBCs found in Otzi as 'intact' using any typical definition of the word. "Not completely trashed and identifiable by complex, detailed molecular analysis" would be closer.
About this article. At least I'm not. Yes, they found some secondary evidence of blood cells which presumably helps forensic analysis in some unspecified way. The authors don't think Otzi exsanguinated immediately because they found, again secondary, evidence of something-that-could-be-fibrin. Fibrin is found in blood clots so they assumption is that he lived long enough for his clotting system to figure out that something bad was happening and it ought to try and do something about it.
Although hardly an expert in Neolithic spear damage analysis, I wouldn't expect someone speared to just keel over and die in a couple of breaths like one sees on TV. Even if he bled out over 20 minutes or so, I would expect some (ineffective) clot formation.
So, I'm missing the point (so to speak) of this. Does forensic science care if you can find evidence of blood in a 5000 year old really, really cold case? Does this help in more contemporary case work? I'd be more impressed if they could pull off specific biochemical markers off the red cells - like blood types or similar markers.
but at what point will there be sufficient incentive to allow for this behavior to be investigated as anti-competitive?
You answered your own question -
I know that a shopper could always choose to go another platform ...
Anti trust laws are not intended to punish companies for being dickwads. That's perfectly legal. It's not some magic shiny sword to have the government swoop in on business practices that you don't like. As you point out, you can drop Apple from your life in complete assurance that you can back up your data, sync your contacts and play Angry Birds without a hitch.
At least with Dropbox, it makes little strategic difference (other than being a jump ahead if Dropbox drops out suddenly). All your data is on one or more hard drives. If Dropbox goes titsup, you just sign up with whoever is left standing and resync.
The only other bit of aggrevation would be dealing with the other services that use Dropbox as a portable storage medium - like 1password - and using another service to duplicate it's functionality.
That's why I think this model is just the best thing that's happened since the Palm Pilot. Data pretty much anywhere. I'd be more worried about having the same data in multiple repositories. I'd screw it up and delete or modify the wrong copy and you'd have a major annoyance keeping everything normalized.
OMG! Think of the Medical Devices!
Give me a break. There are NO, repeat NO medical devices that require constant wireless communication with anything. Otherwise, people would simply keel over in the various Faraday cages that we surround ourselves with throughout the day.
Finally! All the tin foil we've been stockpiling and carefully sculpting clothing out of will pay off.
So it looks like it's gonna end up as Geeks vs. Bureaucrats.
Anyone want to lay odds?
You could always find a Fox News article on the joys of chronic radiation exposure to fair and balance us. Post it to the Firehose.
Yes, the Bulletin on Atomic Scientists is anti nuclear but I'd hardly call them 'rabid'. You're not going to find a neutral point of view in this debate (and the article discusses this with a distinct slant), but it is still worth a read rather than an automatic dismissal.
Here, I'll make you feel better. Barium is used as a contrast agent. It blocks the xray so that it creates a shadow where the barium is located (like in your gut). It's not radioactive in and of itself.
All is does is get you wonderfully constipated.
That was pretty much the point of TFA. The most important factoid that comes from TFA is that the previously considered 'safe' value of 0.1 Sv DOESN'T drop down in the noise - there are excess cancers that can be discerned in published data at that level AND that the average medical radiation burden in developed countries is approaching that 0.1 Sv level.
Therefore, the combination of business as usual for medical radiation AND increased man made exposure from reactor leaks, bombs, spills and other detritus of the nuclear power industry would be additive above baseline. You might have what is thought to be a 'small' spill that turns out to have larger medical consequences than previously thought.
TFA pretty much discredited that hypothesis. At least at rates we can discern in a heterogeneous human population.
In the US, we can call it 'Prostituting for Pennies'.
I've got a better idea. Let's get NK to put transponders on their ICBMs! We could offer them a couple of hundred tons of rice for each transponder. Win-WIn!
It's not Al Qaeda, it's the next Suddam, Iran, or NoKo to come along. The tech only gets easier and cheaper over time, and will be in reach for smaller state actors before much longer IMO.
Really - who?
Even basic ballistic missile tech is hard. Saddam could barely launch SCUDs which they bought from Russia. India is just getting off boosters that qualify as ICBMs (barely). And that's a huge, technologically advanced country. Iran has some theatre capable missiles and again, the barest ICBM level capability. Another fairly advanced nation. Then there is the problem of the warhead. Tossing rocks across continents may look impressive, but strategically it's nonsensical.
So our fascination with the idjits in Pyongyang notwithstanding, there isn't much of a strategic need for ICBM level defense at this time. Unless you think we can create enough of functional shield to significantly degrade a Chinese or Russian strike.
Given the limited amount of defense funding available, it's better to work on some more realistic weapons and perhaps some basic research into alternative resources like oil (which is the basic reason for much of the dick waving these days).
Nuke it from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
The trick for Apple would be to figure out how to control all the little this-and-that things without dealing with the nitty gritty of the device itself. As you point out, they will never manage to cajole the hundreds of vendors involved in refrigerators, TVs, lights, AC etc. into going the Apple way.
OTOH, Microsoft won't be able to do that either - it's just too many vendors dealing with too many things that don't have much value (eg. light switches). Unless somebody comes out with a real 'standard' it ain't gonna happen.
He's having it built by a government-owned shipyard in China. One that has never built a passenger ship. Jinling builds large single-engine tankers, container ships, and RORO (roll-on, roll-off) vessels. Five shipyards in Finland, France, Italy, Germany, and South Korea build most of the passenger ships in the world, and Jinling isn't one of them.
This might not be as far fetched a decision as it first sounds.
Having experience with large Container ships and RORO's is perfect engineering practice for the dealing with the unique, shall we say, attributes, of the average American passenger.
Yep, sounds like cruise ship passengers. The industry term is 'newly wed or nearly dead'.
"point it at anything in order to get the writers out of the corner they've painted themselves into"
It's called a plot device in the industry.
Reality isn't one of it's strong points.
Blocking sites? seems a little familiar, what's next?
The Spanish Inquisition!
Nobody expects to see the Spanish Inquisition.
Yes it does. Ever seen Beijing?
No, and neither has anyone else lately.
Yes, I remember that one. Sad, isn't it.
Sometimes a house is just a house.
It's a major hardware, software integration issue. And this is exactly why Apple will be the first to solve the problem, not Microsoft. All except the 'dystopian surveillance nightmare part' - that will be a feature, not a bug.