They tout specs that matter to consumers. Consumers dont care that there is something called a Tegra inside their phone, or that it can do some 1 billion cycles per second. But they do care that the picture quality on their phone is so good, they will not be able to see dots, but will see smooth lines.
I believe the statute of limitations should be there for some crimes. The state has limited resources, and should concentrate on addressing criminal cases that have occurred in the recent past. There is a reason why more serious crimes will not have a statute of limitation. Obviously, child abuse would seem to be one kind of crime for which many might feel there should be no statute of limitations, or a reasonably long one.
I do not think it is ok for the judge to be a jerk and a wife beater, and I do not think anyone else should be a jerk and a wife beater. You see, holding _everyone_ to the same standard.
Let me start by reiterating that I I think he went over the top, and his behaviour (in beating her) was not only unjustified, but ultimately unhelpful and possibly (almost surely) damaging to her, and he shouldn't have done what he did.
However she did threaten to release the video before she released it. She even said it herself, on video. It makes sense that someone would use that as a weapon to blackmail him. Of course she has corroborated the blackmail bit, but their stories are quite consistent (even if they disagree on many points). She also seemed particularly displeased that he called her bluff about publishing the video.
He is not treating his daughter as a child in adulthood. He is actually treating her as an adult by making her responsible for her own well-being. If she decides she wants to work part time and not finish her college degree, then she should face the consequences of doing so, including a reduction in her income. At 23, no one should expect to be provided for by their parents. She cannot expect her father to bankroll her life choices. The evidence is that her father was supporting her until she was 23, then realised that she wasn't taking responsibility. Removing her privileges forces her to face up to her choices.
He decided to reduce the support because he felt she was not pulling her own weight.
She countered that she had a video of him beating her from 7 years ago. Basically, she was threatening him to keep the support going or risk embarrassment or worse, prosecution or prison.
The law in most countries does not allow blackmail. In fact, if the prosecutors are willing, she might find herself in trouble.
He did something bad, illegal for which he ought to have been punished. But the law does not allow vigilantism. The law is not a tool to be used to beat people into submission with. It is not hers to use as a weapon. She had to decide earlier whether she wanted him punished or not. Heck, this girl continued living with her father after her parents separated.
He didn't completely stop supporting her financially. He reduced her allowance and took away the Mercedes. Most people do not earn enough to drive a Mercedes. Why should he be forced to supplement her income to the level she deems adequate. She should be grateful for every cent she gets. She is essentially blackmailing him. Two wrongs do not make a right.
He didn't download illegal music. His child did. If the RIAA want to sue, they should sue the daughter. It's blatantly obvious that this disturbed man was against downloading music illegally.
AMD should have bought a computer manufacturer, or a brand. AMD can't compete against Intel by trying to get into Dells etc. They can compete with Intel by making their own desktop and server lines, targeting them well and making decent profits by cutting out the middleman. The profits would allow them to continue to invest in their engineering.
AMD need a strategy that allows them to make money off a small market share without sacrificing their ability to invest in their engineering.
The argument that Palestine should not be recognised because they have no agreed borders can be used to refuse to engage them on anything. Basically the sovereignty of Palestine is being put up to a vote by very interested and biased parties, one of whom is de facto judge (by virtue of the veto). In an ordinary court of law (not that I even imagine this to be ordinary), the US would be asked to abstain from casting a vote. The US simply cannot make a fair judgement on the issue. I think the USA fears losing the moral high ground so much it is willing to scare the rest of the world into opposing this motion because if the USA is the only significant power to vote against, they will be seriously undermined in their terrorist fight.
I will give you 3 accomplishments of Steve JObs that put him in a different league to most other people you will find celebrated.
He founded Apple, which is now the second most valuable company in the world.
He founded Pixar, which became the pre-eminent animation studio in the world, and has not produced a single commercial flop, and has only one movie that is not critically acclaimed out of 12. A quite remarkable achievement.
He founded NeXT, which he managed to sell to his first company for $400m. That in itself is another achievement of note.
Basically he founded 3 company's each of which was worth at least $400m in the mid 90s.
He also turned Apple around, and got it producing wonderful products that were loved by millions.
He bettered mankind because he provided jobs, careers and opportunities. That is in itself worth so much more than a lot of the things he is accused of not doing.
And while engineers and scientists do the hard work in making the technology, sometimes without good leaders, they will not be able to produce any decent products. See Nokia, Sony-Ericsson, Motorola and countless other examples. And in any case, Steve's involvement with every product produced by Apple is legendary. This was not your average bean counting CEO.
And Steve Jobs was a celebrity worthy of the name. Damn in, the word is just thrown around for anyone who manages to get themselves on TV. Steve had accomplishments to be celebrated, and people do.
It's not Apple giving them away for free you know. The carriers are the ones who pay for them. And yes, Apple makes a lot of money on those too. They sell the 3GS for $375 unlocked. I would bet they get close to that much for it from the carriers. And that model must be ridiculously cheap to make now, so I bet they are making a tidy profit on that too.
You are kidding right. Premium space on the web is even more valuable in my opinion. One of the reasons Apple does well, is they use their premium space damn well. They don't overlap releases of their core products so they can devote their premium space (their front page) to one product for months at a time.
Unfortunately, you will need a middleman, unless you have become extremely successful, and can self-publish and market yourself without needing the exposure that a middleman gives you. That is why most artists will sell more through iTunes than through, for example, their own website.
Well, Siri was bought out, meaning they were available for sale, ergo it was always an option. Apple might be the big bad behemoth now, but even they can't force startups to sell to them, especially in a market in which three or more other really big behemoth's (Microsoft, Google, Nokia etc) are operating.
And they are the fastest, and most consistent. I live in a flat (apartment for our American friends) that doesn't have a virgin cable connection, and I miss the predictability of the connection. I had the top of the line collection, and besides the few times they had issues in the neighbourhood, their connection, whenever it was working, was far superior to the ADSL that is more generally available.
Now BT is competing a bit more with their fibre optic connection, so it may be that BT may be as quick and more reliable, but Virgin was always good for me.
Factually incorrect. Tim Cook was at Compaq for 6 months. That was before HP bought Compaq. Tim Cook is not an HP man, never was.
Secondly, you don't have to merge with a company after acquiring it. They could run it as a separate subsidiary.
Lastly, this wasn't even about Apple acquiring HP. The comment was made to illustrate how good Apple's balance sheet is. No debt, and could acquire a behemoth of the size of HP for cash, and still have enought left over to not affect their core "Apple" business in any way. I didn't say it would make sense or that Apple should even contemplate it. But if they wanted to, they could do it.
Apple has 80bn in cash. Probably a bit more now. That alone is about 20-25% of their market cap. That is a pretty hot commodity right now. Apple is Intel's worst nightmare. That money makes them own. A lot. They can do thing other companies can only dream of. They can lock out entire production lines. They can invest in their suppliers in return for exclusivity, without necessarily incurring the risk.
And did I mention that they have 3 really hot product lines (Macs, iPads and iPhone) and one that is still doing brilliantly (iPods).
HP has a market cap of 51bn. apple could buy them for cash, and have lots of change left over (on the order of 40bn next time they report).
They are the only American computer company that is growing right now.
Slashdot Mirror
All of those Linux users. Really?
They tout specs that matter to consumers. Consumers dont care that there is something called a Tegra inside their phone, or that it can do some 1 billion cycles per second. But they do care that the picture quality on their phone is so good, they will not be able to see dots, but will see smooth lines.
just redirect slashdot.org to localhost in your hosts file.
Then you can pretend Slashdot doesn't exist.
I believe the statute of limitations should be there for some crimes. The state has limited resources, and should concentrate on addressing criminal cases that have occurred in the recent past. There is a reason why more serious crimes will not have a statute of limitation. Obviously, child abuse would seem to be one kind of crime for which many might feel there should be no statute of limitations, or a reasonably long one.
I do not think it is ok for the judge to be a jerk and a wife beater, and I do not think anyone else should be a jerk and a wife beater. You see, holding _everyone_ to the same standard.
Let me start by reiterating that I I think he went over the top, and his behaviour (in beating her) was not only unjustified, but ultimately unhelpful and possibly (almost surely) damaging to her, and he shouldn't have done what he did.
However she did threaten to release the video before she released it. She even said it herself, on video. It makes sense that someone would use that as a weapon to blackmail him. Of course she has corroborated the blackmail bit, but their stories are quite consistent (even if they disagree on many points). She also seemed particularly displeased that he called her bluff about publishing the video.
He is not treating his daughter as a child in adulthood. He is actually treating her as an adult by making her responsible for her own well-being. If she decides she wants to work part time and not finish her college degree, then she should face the consequences of doing so, including a reduction in her income. At 23, no one should expect to be provided for by their parents. She cannot expect her father to bankroll her life choices. The evidence is that her father was supporting her until she was 23, then realised that she wasn't taking responsibility. Removing her privileges forces her to face up to her choices.
No they shouldn't be held to a higher standard. They should be held to the same standard as everyone else.
That's not how it happened (according to him).
He decided to reduce the support because he felt she was not pulling her own weight.
She countered that she had a video of him beating her from 7 years ago. Basically, she was threatening him to keep the support going or risk embarrassment or worse, prosecution or prison.
The law in most countries does not allow blackmail. In fact, if the prosecutors are willing, she might find herself in trouble.
He did something bad, illegal for which he ought to have been punished. But the law does not allow vigilantism. The law is not a tool to be used to beat people into submission with. It is not hers to use as a weapon. She had to decide earlier whether she wanted him punished or not. Heck, this girl continued living with her father after her parents separated.
He didn't completely stop supporting her financially. He reduced her allowance and took away the Mercedes. Most people do not earn enough to drive a Mercedes. Why should he be forced to supplement her income to the level she deems adequate. She should be grateful for every cent she gets. She is essentially blackmailing him. Two wrongs do not make a right.
He didn't download illegal music. His child did. If the RIAA want to sue, they should sue the daughter. It's blatantly obvious that this disturbed man was against downloading music illegally.
She is 23. Not excusing what he did, but in what world should anyone have to support a grown woman who refuses to take care of herself?
AMD should have bought a computer manufacturer, or a brand. AMD can't compete against Intel by trying to get into Dells etc. They can compete with Intel by making their own desktop and server lines, targeting them well and making decent profits by cutting out the middleman. The profits would allow them to continue to invest in their engineering.
AMD need a strategy that allows them to make money off a small market share without sacrificing their ability to invest in their engineering.
The argument that Palestine should not be recognised because they have no agreed borders can be used to refuse to engage them on anything. Basically the sovereignty of Palestine is being put up to a vote by very interested and biased parties, one of whom is de facto judge (by virtue of the veto). In an ordinary court of law (not that I even imagine this to be ordinary), the US would be asked to abstain from casting a vote. The US simply cannot make a fair judgement on the issue. I think the USA fears losing the moral high ground so much it is willing to scare the rest of the world into opposing this motion because if the USA is the only significant power to vote against, they will be seriously undermined in their terrorist fight.
:Facepalm:
This is why slashdot geeks should never run corps. Debian, seriously?
I mean, geeks are meant to be smart. If you think that Debian will entice regular people to a tablet, then you are hopelessly deluded.
I will give you 3 accomplishments of Steve JObs that put him in a different league to most other people you will find celebrated.
He founded Apple, which is now the second most valuable company in the world.
He founded Pixar, which became the pre-eminent animation studio in the world, and has not produced a single commercial flop, and has only one movie that is not critically acclaimed out of 12. A quite remarkable achievement.
He founded NeXT, which he managed to sell to his first company for $400m. That in itself is another achievement of note.
Basically he founded 3 company's each of which was worth at least $400m in the mid 90s.
He also turned Apple around, and got it producing wonderful products that were loved by millions.
He bettered mankind because he provided jobs, careers and opportunities. That is in itself worth so much more than a lot of the things he is accused of not doing.
And while engineers and scientists do the hard work in making the technology, sometimes without good leaders, they will not be able to produce any decent products. See Nokia, Sony-Ericsson, Motorola and countless other examples. And in any case, Steve's involvement with every product produced by Apple is legendary. This was not your average bean counting CEO.
And Steve Jobs was a celebrity worthy of the name. Damn in, the word is just thrown around for anyone who manages to get themselves on TV. Steve had accomplishments to be celebrated, and people do.
And this is the reason why no one develops for the Mac nowadays. Oh wait, people do develop for the Mac. And 5% of large number is a large number too.
It's not Apple giving them away for free you know. The carriers are the ones who pay for them. And yes, Apple makes a lot of money on those too. They sell the 3GS for $375 unlocked. I would bet they get close to that much for it from the carriers. And that model must be ridiculously cheap to make now, so I bet they are making a tidy profit on that too.
Not anymore, at least not with iOS5.
You are kidding right. Premium space on the web is even more valuable in my opinion. One of the reasons Apple does well, is they use their premium space damn well. They don't overlap releases of their core products so they can devote their premium space (their front page) to one product for months at a time.
Unfortunately, you will need a middleman, unless you have become extremely successful, and can self-publish and market yourself without needing the exposure that a middleman gives you. That is why most artists will sell more through iTunes than through, for example, their own website.
Well, Siri was bought out, meaning they were available for sale, ergo it was always an option. Apple might be the big bad behemoth now, but even they can't force startups to sell to them, especially in a market in which three or more other really big behemoth's (Microsoft, Google, Nokia etc) are operating.
The Camera app doesn't pause mine.
Just sayin'.
And they are the fastest, and most consistent. I live in a flat (apartment for our American friends) that doesn't have a virgin cable connection, and I miss the predictability of the connection. I had the top of the line collection, and besides the few times they had issues in the neighbourhood, their connection, whenever it was working, was far superior to the ADSL that is more generally available.
Now BT is competing a bit more with their fibre optic connection, so it may be that BT may be as quick and more reliable, but Virgin was always good for me.
Factually incorrect. Tim Cook was at Compaq for 6 months. That was before HP bought Compaq. Tim Cook is not an HP man, never was.
Secondly, you don't have to merge with a company after acquiring it. They could run it as a separate subsidiary.
Lastly, this wasn't even about Apple acquiring HP. The comment was made to illustrate how good Apple's balance sheet is. No debt, and could acquire a behemoth of the size of HP for cash, and still have enought left over to not affect their core "Apple" business in any way. I didn't say it would make sense or that Apple should even contemplate it. But if they wanted to, they could do it.
Apple has 80bn in cash. Probably a bit more now. That alone is about 20-25% of their market cap. That is a pretty hot commodity right now. Apple is Intel's worst nightmare. That money makes them own. A lot. They can do thing other companies can only dream of. They can lock out entire production lines. They can invest in their suppliers in return for exclusivity, without necessarily incurring the risk.
And did I mention that they have 3 really hot product lines (Macs, iPads and iPhone) and one that is still doing brilliantly (iPods).
HP has a market cap of 51bn. apple could buy them for cash, and have lots of change left over (on the order of 40bn next time they report).
They are the only American computer company that is growing right now.