Don't be so sure. Apple's iWork suite has pretty good compatibility with with MS Office. And you can bet that is Microsoft discontinued Mac Office then Apple would kick iWork development and marketing into high gear.
There are businesses still using Windows XP with Internet Explorer 6. I don't that enterprise really cares about being on the bleeding edge. It's not like Tiger stopped working as soon as Snow Leopard was released. And besides, the transition from PowerPC to Intel was a special case. Any business that bought a PowerPC Mac just before the announced transition to Intel would have expected a quicker time to obsolescence.
Whenever anyone says that they hate Facebook's new layout because it's 'less useful' and 'cluttered' what they really mean is that they hate change. A fairly common emotion, but not one to broadcast on Slashdot. If anything, they new layout is less cluttered. Chat is now the only thing on the bar at the bottom and friend request, inbox and notifications have all been put in the same place, instead of spread to the four corners of the screen.
What you fail to mention is that many believe that Ogg-Theora may be violating patents. That is the specific reason Apple give for not supporting it. If Ogg-Theora gains traction you can bet some IP owners will come after anyone implementing it.
That’d be an interesting move, and it would certainly shake things up. But what if the source code to Flash Player is — as many would wager — a huge steaming pile of convoluted C++ horseshit? It’s sort of like what if Microsoft open-sourced the Internet Explorer rendering engine. It’s not like anyone who is now using WebKit or Gecko would switch to that just because it was opened — or that WebKit, Mozilla, and Opera would suddenly be obligated to or even interested in adopting IE-specific web features.
No it wouldn't. A small hole (like in a window) will not cause explosive decompression. For that to occur requires a large part of the fuselage be removed (such as by an explosion), or for the plane to have structural defects. In a recent incident a football sized hole opened in the side of a plane at 34000 feet, but only rapid decompression occurred, not explosive decompression.
Bear in mind that if this happened it would be national news. And public opinion would force the judge to punish the security people harshly, and probably compensate the victim.
There is a contradiction. The people implementing these devices probably think that they work (and if they don't, that's one level of stupidity). If they decide not to scan children, then that's a further level of stupidity! I don't know whether the scanners work or not, but I prefer that the people in charge of them have one fewer levels of stupidity.
IANAL, but from my scant knowledge, damaging someones reputation in the UK carries a financial penalty. I'm not sure of the specifics, but I don't think these are classed as punitive (exemplary) damages.
There are several alternative London airports. London City is in fact the best airport for London, it's within the city itself, Gatwick and Stansted are further out than Heathrow, but often quicker to pass through. They both have fairly good transport links to the city.
I find it difficult to reconcile the summary's outrage at 'security theatre', with its outrage at 'naked' photos of children. If we are to use these devices, and assume (possibly a big assumption) that they can detect weapons then we must scan children, otherwise it really is security theatre. To exempt children would be to render the scanners truly useless. Am I happy with these scanners? No, but they've been in use for many years in other countries (like Russia) and they seem to be more effective at detecting suspicious devices than any other method, short of a pat down. However, I'm not sure why a pat down is not an acceptable alternative. Perhaps because security people are generally afraid of patting down peoples sensitive areas.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be so sure. Apple's iWork suite has pretty good compatibility with with MS Office. And you can bet that is Microsoft discontinued Mac Office then Apple would kick iWork development and marketing into high gear.
There are businesses still using Windows XP with Internet Explorer 6. I don't that enterprise really cares about being on the bleeding edge. It's not like Tiger stopped working as soon as Snow Leopard was released. And besides, the transition from PowerPC to Intel was a special case. Any business that bought a PowerPC Mac just before the announced transition to Intel would have expected a quicker time to obsolescence.
SATA drivers were the worst. Windows required you use a fucking floppy drive to install them.
The EU has extremely strict data protection regulations. Transferring data to American companies can be an issue because the USA doesn't have the same protections.
Whenever anyone says that they hate Facebook's new layout because it's 'less useful' and 'cluttered' what they really mean is that they hate change. A fairly common emotion, but not one to broadcast on Slashdot. If anything, they new layout is less cluttered. Chat is now the only thing on the bar at the bottom and friend request, inbox and notifications have all been put in the same place, instead of spread to the four corners of the screen.
Tea drinkers wussies? Tea drinkers conquered half the world forming the largest empire in history in pursuit of more tea.
What you fail to mention is that many believe that Ogg-Theora may be violating patents. That is the specific reason Apple give for not supporting it. If Ogg-Theora gains traction you can bet some IP owners will come after anyone implementing it.
No he doesn't. Madelson seems to have a greater influence on the government than Gordon Brown, whereas Lucas has almost none.
Very true. Apple could buy them purely with cash. They have at least $28 billion on hand.
No it wouldn't. A small hole (like in a window) will not cause explosive decompression. For that to occur requires a large part of the fuselage be removed (such as by an explosion), or for the plane to have structural defects. In a recent incident a football sized hole opened in the side of a plane at 34000 feet, but only rapid decompression occurred, not explosive decompression.
Cracking the window won't bring down a plane. It'll depressurise it, but that's not that much of a threat.
It doesn't explicitly mention child pornography, but that was (pretty obviously) the issue before.
Bear in mind that if this happened it would be national news. And public opinion would force the judge to punish the security people harshly, and probably compensate the victim.
There is a contradiction. The people implementing these devices probably think that they work (and if they don't, that's one level of stupidity). If they decide not to scan children, then that's a further level of stupidity! I don't know whether the scanners work or not, but I prefer that the people in charge of them have one fewer levels of stupidity.
IANAL, but from my scant knowledge, damaging someones reputation in the UK carries a financial penalty. I'm not sure of the specifics, but I don't think these are classed as punitive (exemplary) damages.
The British government loves to promote people with interesting names. Our head of the armed forces is Air Chief Marshall Sir Jock Stirrup.
At security in airports in the UK, at least the ones I've been through, the passport is not scanned.
Faces are basically unrecognisable, and if by some miracle you are recognisable, you'd probably get a nice payout from the ensuing lawsuit.
OK, but wouldn't not scanning children with these devices be more of a security theatre than scanning everyone?
As TFA says, any child pornography issues have been dealt with by the government.
There are several alternative London airports. London City is in fact the best airport for London, it's within the city itself, Gatwick and Stansted are further out than Heathrow, but often quicker to pass through. They both have fairly good transport links to the city.
I find it difficult to reconcile the summary's outrage at 'security theatre', with its outrage at 'naked' photos of children. If we are to use these devices, and assume (possibly a big assumption) that they can detect weapons then we must scan children, otherwise it really is security theatre. To exempt children would be to render the scanners truly useless. Am I happy with these scanners? No, but they've been in use for many years in other countries (like Russia) and they seem to be more effective at detecting suspicious devices than any other method, short of a pat down. However, I'm not sure why a pat down is not an acceptable alternative. Perhaps because security people are generally afraid of patting down peoples sensitive areas.
So why don't you point me to the real Apple fan forum?
The emphasis is on dedicated.