Define properly locked up. Most gun safes are not bank vaults. A typical gun safe is going to take a person about 5-10 minutes to break into with some power tools. Gun safes are great for keeping your guns away from people who should not be messing with them. They are not so great at keeping someone that wants your guns from getting them.
I doubt it provides any shame. Those who support the second amendment view this as a privacy violation. We are already used to our friends and family that are anti-gun complaining;-P
Violates the TOS and Privacy Policy Apple has in place. Do you make exceptions? Then why do you have the policy. It does matter as once you allow exceptions the policy becomes impossible to enforce. Maybe Google has a nice informative opt in screen. Maybe someone else puts a hot corner in their app and no documentation and if you hit that corner you've opted in to privacy policy violations. How to you differentiate the two?
Yes and no. The general public will largely see this the way you describe, but you are missing one key component. The demands Apple did not want to "give in to" were customer data and privacy demands specified in the Apple TOS. To get Google Maps in the App store, Google had to comply with those standards. So Google did not get everything they wanted. Apple has the features Android had in Google Maps without having to concede on the privacy standards they have set. So, in actuality, Apple did "win," just not in public opinion.
I totally disagree. We had a chance to vote for Gary Johnson as a Republican. He failed to get enough support early on, so he dropped out and is now "running" as a 3rd party candidate, but this is silly. It's not only that he can't win, but that he couldn't even win within one party.
It's all perspective. You say he couldn't even win within his party. I say the "media" and "elites" put hurdles up and limit the opportunities for these voices to be heard. If Gary Johnson had as much coverage as Newt Gingrich in the primary, could he have won? This isn't just speculation either. When Johnson ran for Governor he was polling at 3% before the governor's debate. A debate that had more than two candidates. After the debate, Johnson soared up the polls and ended up winning.
I have a hard time trying to convince myself that a system of exclusion justifies the perceived need for a two party system. Many other countries hold elections with more than just two candidates without any problem at all. Most people I have talked to don't know who Gary Johnson is. Those that do know, are voting for him. Now, my circle of friends is not scientific by any means, but it further illustrates the point, the control is in the information. Yes, people could go do the research for themselves, but more than likely, they will not.
There is a "better" system. The one created by the United States of America in 1776. The one we have been moving away from in favor of "progression." Simply our original idea has gotten turned on it's head. Originally the Federal Government was to be limited in size and power, this allowed the control to be closer to the people, which in turn allows for much more rapid change. I cannot vote out my senators, as I am in the minority viewpoint of my state. I like my representative, but my representative's vote is drowned out by the 40 other representatives of my State that do not share his views. Local government I can be more active in and actually inact change, and fight corruption. The higher up the chain, the harder that is to achieve. Even getting a governor out can be a challenge.
But MFN is not exclusive. You can sign a MFN clause with Apple and Amazon. Then Barnes and Noble can negotiate a lower retail price just fine. At this point the publisher has to go back to Apple and Amazon and give them the Barnes and Nobel price going forward. This doesn't guarantee Apple the lowest price, it guarantee's Apple doesn't get screwed by having to sell the same product at a higher price.
And if my house burns down tonight, all my hardcover and paperback books are gone forever. I can buy a new iPad and have all my ebooks restored in less than an hour. 10 years from now I can't predict, just saying.
Ability to create/re-create does not equal supply. There is exactly zero supply of ebooks sitting on a shelf waiting to be moved. Now, they can create a copy for you in seconds, but you have to pay them what they consider fair for them to do it, or they'd rather keep it to themselves. See supply and demand works both ways. You have to supply enough cash for them to want to meet your demand.
The publisher is irrelevant. The system works the same if it's one of the major publishers, and independent publisher, or the author self publishing. It's true, we don't "need" the publishers, but I have nothing to do with that transaction. The author selected a publisher to distribute his work, that was his choice and his cost. Now they are the distributors and I have to get it from them, but that changes nothing from my perspective versus buying straight from an independent author.
Why do hardbacks cost more than paperback? The extra cost of the "cover" is probably less than a dollar, yet you've had no problem paying it before and never complained. Why? Maybe because the hardcover book will last LONGER than the paperback and is easier to take care of. Just like the ebook. You are paying more for a better product. Production costs are largely irrelevant.
The question is, are they charging more than a fair price? I think the answer to that is they are not. So what is the problem? Our economy has gone down the tube because everyone is hung up on price. We complain when they ship our jobs overseas, but we want to pay fractal pennies on the dollar for every item in profit. I see no collusion in ebook pricing. I see a wide range of prices for ebooks. If you are unhappy with the pricing, don't buy them.
I'm sorry, donated equipment only reduces acquisition cost. What about SUPPORT costs? It is much cheaper to support 1000 identical machines as you can use imaging, stock minimal replacement parts and so forth. Having 1000 machines with 50 different configs is going to increase cost and up-time. Typically these institutions are running somewhere around 1 technician per 500-700 machines while the "private" sector is supposedly around 1 technician per 150-250 machines. But, it's not YOUR problem right? Make them use donated stuff!
Here is California, under Ed Code, we must have a book for the students to take home, plus a book for the student to use in class. The in class book can be used for all periods. So your math should be:
(30 books * $100) + (30 students per class/6 classes per teacher is 180 kids * $100) = $21,000
Also, here in California we are under strict rules on how public funds can be spent. I cannot buy a $15 eBook and let a student tie it to their iTunes account. What schools tend to do is set up "dummy" accounts for each SCHOOL owned iPad. Meaning the book is still there next year, it doesn't move on with the student. I can't see how I would need to re-buy the books each year. So the new math is:
(30 students per class/6 classes per teacher is 180 kids * $15) = $2,700
Now multiply that out by 5 periods with a textbook, we'll assume 1 period of a class that does not use a textbook like PE or Shop.
Old: $21,000 * 5 = $105,000
New: $2,700 * 5 + 180 * $450 (cost of iPad) = $94,500
My 3G ran IOS4 fine. Some of my friends did experience sluggishness. They reset the phone to factory defaults and reloaded apps and it was fine after. Plus they patched IOS4 weeks after the initial complaints that sped it up even more. Apple supports their products, which was the whole point of the article.
You shouldn't need to be an IT guru to upgrade your phone. A lot of iPhones owned by coworkers are never upgraded. When I talk to said coworkers about a feature they are lacking, I tell them go home, plug the phone in to your computer, iTunes will ask you to upgrade and it will. 100% of the time they come back the next day saying "Thanks, did what you said and it worked no problems." Can you tell a normal person how to unlock their boot loader, root the phone, download an unauthorized ROIM and install the update on their phone?
This is what I don't get about the android fanboys, you need IT skills to operate android normally. Their arguments against iPhones are the walled garden, but with the same required IT skills I can jailbreak and avoid the walled garden if I so choose. With proper IT skills, iPhones and Androids are equal. Without, iPhones are clearly superior.
When I order a new Mac, I get it in about a week. The supplies are only constrained when they are about to expire a device and launch a new one. Less than a 1 month window. You can't build a factory and staff it for 12 months to meet demand for a 1 month block. That's simple economics. The original iPad had the supply issues for a couple of months, but that was a pioneering product that way exceeded expectations. I ordered 4 iPads 2 weeks ago, got them in 5 days. Doesn't sound like a problem to me.
No, It is impractical. I am responsible for the reliability of my 1,800 node network. I have 5 support staff to make everything run and test future upgrades. No way I allow personal equipment on my network, as I cannot maintain reliability with unknown mis-configured equipment on my network that I do not know about. But, let's just let you roll your own cell phone. You can reprogram the firmware change the protocols of the communications system, I mean what could go wrong, right?
Quit believing what other companies tell you. I don't care about the user replaceable battery. Why? Because in 3 years of using iPhones I've never run the battery down all the way. Not once. The fact that other phones "require" you carry a second battery is their problem, not Apple's.
And the shipper knows the value of the package how? The customer can lie to get out of paying tax. They would also lose insurance protection, true, but just food for thought.
Its more about how you watch. Your eyes can shift focal point readily. The camera has 1 focal point. When you focus on a person in real life the surrounds to that person are a little out of focus, shift to the tree behind them, and the tree focuses while the person slightly de-focuses. In a 3D movie, when you shift your focus from the intended focal point, your eye can not focus the image, because the image itself is not in focus. This is what causes your eye strain. If you watch the 3d movie by only looking at the focal point, you do not have the issue. In other words, the 3D only works if you watch it like a 2D movie. Which is why I won't pay to watch anything in 3D. My brain already process the depth perception from a "2D" movie.
Their 4G is not LTE. It is HSDPA+. They can only call it 4G due to the regulations changing to throughput instead of technology. This is fine right now, but once LTE is readily available, their "4G" will be clearly inferior due to technological limitations.
I am an AT&T Wireless customer as they have good coverage in my area. Mobile to mobile and roll over keep me "loyal." I was initially against this merger, however I read some articles that changed my mind. First T-Mobile has no 4G Spectrum. All the 4G spectrum was sold to Verizon, Sprint and AT&T who acquired theirs from Nextel. The monopoly is created by the spectrum requirements, not the companies themselves. The government messed this up and T-mobile has no opportunity to continue competing.
It makes no sense for Sprint or Verizon to buy T-mobile as the technologies are incompatible. AT&T on the other hands needs more towers and they take time to approve. Acquiring them from T-mobile will speed up the deployment of more radios.
If you want true competition, the government needs to stop selling the spectrum, and instead pay for the infrastructure and let the companies all provide competing services over the same infrastructure. It does not make sense to force T-mobile to compete in a 4G world with 3G service.
But the Time Warner streams are not on demand, they are Live feed of the broadcast. Plus you have to subscribe to the channel on Time Warner to get the channel on the app. You also currently have to be streaming across a Time Warner cable modem for it to work. The viewership data would be easier to acquire than a traditional TV. Its a win, win, win and win!
Slashdot Mirror
Define properly locked up. Most gun safes are not bank vaults. A typical gun safe is going to take a person about 5-10 minutes to break into with some power tools. Gun safes are great for keeping your guns away from people who should not be messing with them. They are not so great at keeping someone that wants your guns from getting them.
I doubt it provides any shame. Those who support the second amendment view this as a privacy violation. We are already used to our friends and family that are anti-gun complaining ;-P
Violates the TOS and Privacy Policy Apple has in place. Do you make exceptions? Then why do you have the policy. It does matter as once you allow exceptions the policy becomes impossible to enforce. Maybe Google has a nice informative opt in screen. Maybe someone else puts a hot corner in their app and no documentation and if you hit that corner you've opted in to privacy policy violations. How to you differentiate the two?
Yes and no. The general public will largely see this the way you describe, but you are missing one key component. The demands Apple did not want to "give in to" were customer data and privacy demands specified in the Apple TOS. To get Google Maps in the App store, Google had to comply with those standards. So Google did not get everything they wanted. Apple has the features Android had in Google Maps without having to concede on the privacy standards they have set. So, in actuality, Apple did "win," just not in public opinion.
There should never be a profit motive to keep people in prison. That conflict of interest is completely unconscionable.
And yet there is a well documented "profit" motive for government run prisons. http://youtu.be/Zq7heLS2ydQ. Isn't that a pickle?
I totally disagree. We had a chance to vote for Gary Johnson as a Republican. He failed to get enough support early on, so he dropped out and is now "running" as a 3rd party candidate, but this is silly. It's not only that he can't win, but that he couldn't even win within one party.
It's all perspective. You say he couldn't even win within his party. I say the "media" and "elites" put hurdles up and limit the opportunities for these voices to be heard. If Gary Johnson had as much coverage as Newt Gingrich in the primary, could he have won? This isn't just speculation either. When Johnson ran for Governor he was polling at 3% before the governor's debate. A debate that had more than two candidates. After the debate, Johnson soared up the polls and ended up winning.
I have a hard time trying to convince myself that a system of exclusion justifies the perceived need for a two party system. Many other countries hold elections with more than just two candidates without any problem at all. Most people I have talked to don't know who Gary Johnson is. Those that do know, are voting for him. Now, my circle of friends is not scientific by any means, but it further illustrates the point, the control is in the information. Yes, people could go do the research for themselves, but more than likely, they will not.
There is a "better" system. The one created by the United States of America in 1776. The one we have been moving away from in favor of "progression." Simply our original idea has gotten turned on it's head. Originally the Federal Government was to be limited in size and power, this allowed the control to be closer to the people, which in turn allows for much more rapid change. I cannot vote out my senators, as I am in the minority viewpoint of my state. I like my representative, but my representative's vote is drowned out by the 40 other representatives of my State that do not share his views. Local government I can be more active in and actually inact change, and fight corruption. The higher up the chain, the harder that is to achieve. Even getting a governor out can be a challenge.
But MFN is not exclusive. You can sign a MFN clause with Apple and Amazon. Then Barnes and Noble can negotiate a lower retail price just fine. At this point the publisher has to go back to Apple and Amazon and give them the Barnes and Nobel price going forward. This doesn't guarantee Apple the lowest price, it guarantee's Apple doesn't get screwed by having to sell the same product at a higher price.
And if my house burns down tonight, all my hardcover and paperback books are gone forever. I can buy a new iPad and have all my ebooks restored in less than an hour. 10 years from now I can't predict, just saying.
Ability to create/re-create does not equal supply. There is exactly zero supply of ebooks sitting on a shelf waiting to be moved. Now, they can create a copy for you in seconds, but you have to pay them what they consider fair for them to do it, or they'd rather keep it to themselves. See supply and demand works both ways. You have to supply enough cash for them to want to meet your demand.
The publisher is irrelevant. The system works the same if it's one of the major publishers, and independent publisher, or the author self publishing. It's true, we don't "need" the publishers, but I have nothing to do with that transaction. The author selected a publisher to distribute his work, that was his choice and his cost. Now they are the distributors and I have to get it from them, but that changes nothing from my perspective versus buying straight from an independent author.
With economies of scale, I'd estimate all that to be less than $3 a copy. Disagree?
Why do hardbacks cost more than paperback? The extra cost of the "cover" is probably less than a dollar, yet you've had no problem paying it before and never complained. Why? Maybe because the hardcover book will last LONGER than the paperback and is easier to take care of. Just like the ebook. You are paying more for a better product. Production costs are largely irrelevant.
The question is, are they charging more than a fair price? I think the answer to that is they are not. So what is the problem? Our economy has gone down the tube because everyone is hung up on price. We complain when they ship our jobs overseas, but we want to pay fractal pennies on the dollar for every item in profit. I see no collusion in ebook pricing. I see a wide range of prices for ebooks. If you are unhappy with the pricing, don't buy them.
I'm sorry, donated equipment only reduces acquisition cost. What about SUPPORT costs? It is much cheaper to support 1000 identical machines as you can use imaging, stock minimal replacement parts and so forth. Having 1000 machines with 50 different configs is going to increase cost and up-time. Typically these institutions are running somewhere around 1 technician per 500-700 machines while the "private" sector is supposedly around 1 technician per 150-250 machines. But, it's not YOUR problem right? Make them use donated stuff!
Here is California, under Ed Code, we must have a book for the students to take home, plus a book for the student to use in class. The in class book can be used for all periods. So your math should be: (30 books * $100) + (30 students per class/6 classes per teacher is 180 kids * $100) = $21,000 Also, here in California we are under strict rules on how public funds can be spent. I cannot buy a $15 eBook and let a student tie it to their iTunes account. What schools tend to do is set up "dummy" accounts for each SCHOOL owned iPad. Meaning the book is still there next year, it doesn't move on with the student. I can't see how I would need to re-buy the books each year. So the new math is: (30 students per class/6 classes per teacher is 180 kids * $15) = $2,700 Now multiply that out by 5 periods with a textbook, we'll assume 1 period of a class that does not use a textbook like PE or Shop. Old: $21,000 * 5 = $105,000 New: $2,700 * 5 + 180 * $450 (cost of iPad) = $94,500
My 3G ran IOS4 fine. Some of my friends did experience sluggishness. They reset the phone to factory defaults and reloaded apps and it was fine after. Plus they patched IOS4 weeks after the initial complaints that sped it up even more. Apple supports their products, which was the whole point of the article.
You shouldn't need to be an IT guru to upgrade your phone. A lot of iPhones owned by coworkers are never upgraded. When I talk to said coworkers about a feature they are lacking, I tell them go home, plug the phone in to your computer, iTunes will ask you to upgrade and it will. 100% of the time they come back the next day saying "Thanks, did what you said and it worked no problems." Can you tell a normal person how to unlock their boot loader, root the phone, download an unauthorized ROIM and install the update on their phone? This is what I don't get about the android fanboys, you need IT skills to operate android normally. Their arguments against iPhones are the walled garden, but with the same required IT skills I can jailbreak and avoid the walled garden if I so choose. With proper IT skills, iPhones and Androids are equal. Without, iPhones are clearly superior.
When I order a new Mac, I get it in about a week. The supplies are only constrained when they are about to expire a device and launch a new one. Less than a 1 month window. You can't build a factory and staff it for 12 months to meet demand for a 1 month block. That's simple economics. The original iPad had the supply issues for a couple of months, but that was a pioneering product that way exceeded expectations. I ordered 4 iPads 2 weeks ago, got them in 5 days. Doesn't sound like a problem to me.
No, It is impractical. I am responsible for the reliability of my 1,800 node network. I have 5 support staff to make everything run and test future upgrades. No way I allow personal equipment on my network, as I cannot maintain reliability with unknown mis-configured equipment on my network that I do not know about. But, let's just let you roll your own cell phone. You can reprogram the firmware change the protocols of the communications system, I mean what could go wrong, right?
Quit believing what other companies tell you. I don't care about the user replaceable battery. Why? Because in 3 years of using iPhones I've never run the battery down all the way. Not once. The fact that other phones "require" you carry a second battery is their problem, not Apple's.
And the shipper knows the value of the package how? The customer can lie to get out of paying tax. They would also lose insurance protection, true, but just food for thought.
Where can I preorder?
Its more about how you watch. Your eyes can shift focal point readily. The camera has 1 focal point. When you focus on a person in real life the surrounds to that person are a little out of focus, shift to the tree behind them, and the tree focuses while the person slightly de-focuses. In a 3D movie, when you shift your focus from the intended focal point, your eye can not focus the image, because the image itself is not in focus. This is what causes your eye strain. If you watch the 3d movie by only looking at the focal point, you do not have the issue. In other words, the 3D only works if you watch it like a 2D movie. Which is why I won't pay to watch anything in 3D. My brain already process the depth perception from a "2D" movie.
Their 4G is not LTE. It is HSDPA+. They can only call it 4G due to the regulations changing to throughput instead of technology. This is fine right now, but once LTE is readily available, their "4G" will be clearly inferior due to technological limitations.
I am an AT&T Wireless customer as they have good coverage in my area. Mobile to mobile and roll over keep me "loyal." I was initially against this merger, however I read some articles that changed my mind. First T-Mobile has no 4G Spectrum. All the 4G spectrum was sold to Verizon, Sprint and AT&T who acquired theirs from Nextel. The monopoly is created by the spectrum requirements, not the companies themselves. The government messed this up and T-mobile has no opportunity to continue competing.
It makes no sense for Sprint or Verizon to buy T-mobile as the technologies are incompatible. AT&T on the other hands needs more towers and they take time to approve. Acquiring them from T-mobile will speed up the deployment of more radios.
If you want true competition, the government needs to stop selling the spectrum, and instead pay for the infrastructure and let the companies all provide competing services over the same infrastructure. It does not make sense to force T-mobile to compete in a 4G world with 3G service.
But the Time Warner streams are not on demand, they are Live feed of the broadcast. Plus you have to subscribe to the channel on Time Warner to get the channel on the app. You also currently have to be streaming across a Time Warner cable modem for it to work. The viewership data would be easier to acquire than a traditional TV. Its a win, win, win and win!