Apple created a walled garden which locks you into using their hardware AND their distribution mechanism.
With the release of iMatch, Apple has effectively implemented an new type of DRM, one where their proprietary content can be streamed over to their proprietary devices. Apple didn't remove DRM from music, they just changed the way music and media is distributed to iUsers.
But DRM on music hasn't worked for 20 years, that is why Apple claimed to remove it. How about why can't I play iTunes Movies on my non-Apple device? Why hasn't Apple removed DRM from movies and TV shows? Apple had nothing to do with removing DRM, the industry decided music was a lost cause to protect. The movie industry has not realized this yet which is why the force Apple to enable DRM for their movie content.
Apple had a marketing slogan "Rip. Mix. Burn.", yes, music only. Blu-Ray is a MOVIE format, Apple does not allow support to burn their movie and TV show content.
"Apple has a Cloud service which mirrors your music to all your devices", yes, Apple devices only, If Apple were heroes, they would open iTunes to support any device, so you could stream media to non-Apple products. The would also support ANY media type on their platform. No chance this is ever going to happen.
Apple also DICTATES what software can run on iOS. Any competitive service is prevented from being distributed on iDevices. If you are going to start whipping out Apple examples, don't ignore the "bad" stuff.
So, don't claim Apple is a hero and Sony is a villain. Apple has become one of the most evil companies that is quickly tightening their stranglehold to create a monopoly where they control hardware, software AND content, but the iMasses are so orgasmic over Apple they are not seeing this clearly.
It is absolutely retarded that people see Sony as evil and Apple as heroes when BOTH companies are trying to do the EXACT same thing, create a walled garden locking users into their platform. The difference is that Apple was a lot slicker (re slimey) and more successful to accomplish this vs Sony.
Sony has a right to protect their online services. This is not about them trying to create more DRM, this is about them preventing fucktards of hacking into their online services and ruining them for people that just want to play a game or rent a movie. Yeah, Sony is evil for that. Whether Sony has learned from past mistakes, it is yet to be seen, but they are learning that they cannot have a viable content system if their users loose faith in their ability to protect those online systems.
While I don't want to support walled gardens, I support any other company trying to compete with Apple, but Apple has a "lets crush them!" mentality and I am very afraid that 10 years from now you can only buy content through iTunes (controlled and set by Apple pricing schemes) and run them on iDevices (controlled and set by Apple pricing schemes).
If that is not the sign of an evil, selfish and greedy corporation, then you have your head stuck in the sand.
Why? Its the OS people choose to use for desktop PC.
Seriously, this idea that people are forced to use Windows is crazy. Dell made Windows standard on their PC's because the majority of people ordering Dell PC's back in the 90's also bought a copy of Windows with it. Microsoft may have given them added incentive, but the reality is people did NOT choose OS/2.
Even when Mac computers grew in popularity when they switched to the Intel platform, the Lion's share (pardon the pun) of users are want to boot into Windows, or at least have the option available. Almost everyone I know with a Mac is running Windows on it predominantly.
The reason why Microsoft has not gained traction in the mobile market is because they have not produced a product people want. If you have the option between three phones, one by Apple, one running Android, and one running WP7, people are choosing Apple and Android more then Microsoft.
Also how is hosting Windows/Office over the web reducing the use of Windows. It is pretty much indicating that people want to use Microsoft products, even on non-Microsoft platforms.
I find comments such as yours flawed and biased with an necessary hatred of something that is a non-issue. Nobody holds a gun to your head and forced you to use Windows, chances are you whipped up your comment on a Windows box. You can freely choose Linux or OS X as your desired platform, but the PC market pretty much universally choose Windows as their preferred desktop OS, just as they are predominantly choosing iPad as their tablet platform and iPhone/Android split as their preferred mobile platform.
If you think that consumers are not dictating the popularity of software/OS/hardware, etc, you are woefully out of touch with reality.
Yes, you are missing the point by bitching about it and not using it.
If you start typing while Metro while displayed, it goes to a search view that filters your 1000's of applications down to a few icons you can run.
In fact, it does the same thing that typing in the search box on the "current' Start menu button, UI just a little different.
Also the good old desktop is still there running in the background. When I upgraded over my Windows 7 install, all the same icons and task bar applications are still there and available to run, Metro free.
Metro is not intended to be the ONLY way you use Windows 8, its a redesigned Start Menu with the ability to write purpose built "apps" to run over top your desktop "applications".
Apple will wait for everyone else to have quantum computing, and then release a device making the masses believe Apple invented quantum computing because they call it iQuantum.
But I agree. Apple has 98 billion in the bank and is worth over 1/2 trillion on paper, yet they are only focus on repackaging largely off the shelf components invented by other companies into fancy packages and spending way too much money designing retail stores that boast large sheets of seamless glass.
What strikes me as really depressing is that while Bill Gates is generally hated among Slashdot readers he had given more back to the world in the terms of his charity work. In his "retirement" he is focused on trying to solve some of the world's biggest issues in poverty and quality of life.
On the other hand, Steve Job's stayed at Apple pretty much up till his death bed creating an empire where people just thrown them money to buy into a walled garden of content and hardware while Apple shits on any other competitive product or company.
How has Apple given back to the world? Creating jobs where the pressure is so high people kills themselves when they don't meet Apple's quota's or quality standards? Creating products people actually kill for? Creating a market of "want" that is never satiated until someone becomes bankrupt?
Apple needs to start giving back, put some of them billions into charity and maybe try to invent something useful for the world that does have an "i" in front of it.
I sincerely think that Apple has enough money to cure cancer, but the company is more interested in hoarding money and technology patents. Its a shame really that everybody's beloved Apple is probably one of the most evil, greedy, selfish and vindictive companies wrapped in a protective bubble of smugness.
Google is all about performance, making sure people spend less time to do stuff. They measure performance in terms of how many people they kill waiting for a search result or accessing some feature of a Google product. For instance if 90 million people had to wait 1 second for a Google+ page to load that is equal to robbing someone of approx 3 years of their life. If a billion people had to wait 1 second for a search result, that is equivalent of wasting 31 years of someones life.
So, by not having much content on Google+ and not making it very interesting, Google is saving billions of lives.
I know you were trying to make a point, but you failed.
What consumer has to learn how to use.Net, Silverlight? These are development platforms used to create apps, no consumer needed to know anything about these technologies other then installing or updating them (running Windows update). And if you were a developer you realize these platforms have evolved over the last 5 years building off the previous generation. Even WinRT which "replaces".Net is mostly indistinguishable from.Net code that its an effortless switch for most.Net developers and consumer will be oblivious to the change.
What did you have to learn about Zune? How to press play, pause, find a song?
Live is being re-branded as Lync but largely the changes are insignificant, having to figure out how to IM or call someone in the post-Live universe will not break anyone's brain.
Also I prefer an app to open up every file type that existed rather then one that say's "Sorry, your old file type is not supported".
Also certified "standards" are almost never 100% adopted by anybody. The WC3 has spent years trying to "standardize" the web, but even champions like Google and Mozilla have not been able to achieve 100% standardization.
The Internet pretty much debunked your comment entirely. There used to be a time when people valued every application working the same way with the same UI cues. But then this Interweb thingy came into existence and people pretty much figured out how to navigate it in spite of every web page being authored differently. Sure, there are "standards" adopted that bring some consistency to UI, but people figured out how to use Facebook which looks different then Twitter, which looks different then Google+ and there are a slew of different online e-Commerce stores that all present their interfaces wildly different then the next.
Not to mention the fact that people in general moved effortlessly from desktop OS'es to mobile OS'es which did not share any common UI cues.
It's a myth that an OS or application UI has to remain consistent and unchanging for 5+ years. If you find it hard to adapt to each new OS version or a MS rebranding, well then, you might be an idiot.
Seriously get a better IDE if you think using var is confusing.
var saves me from having to do this:
Dictionary, AnotherClass myCollection = new Dictionary, AnotherClass();
instead I can go:
var myCollection = new Dictionary, AnotherClass();
which is significantly more readable and removes redundant overhead of typing a type twice. And if you can't figure out what type it is, you should change your profession.
or even better:
var collection = someclass.ACollection;
without having to explicitly know what type ACollection is (i.e. having to hunt through code to copy and paste the type ACollection is defined as).
this is particularly helpful using Linq such as:
var results = results.ForEach( r => do something );
Which in the Linq world is good because often the generated results is some complex generics collection that would be very difficult to know what exact explicit type the results generate.
Lastly, what if the type changes and you don't have a decent IDE that refactors for you, now suddenly ALL your explicit types with throw compile errors and there is a measurable amount of time required for a developer to "maintain" the code.
Sorry, but var is not difficult to understand how to use properly and if I worked for you I would shove your "guidelines" somewhere unpleasant because generally guidelines are written by people who do not know better.
BTW, generally these days language features are not added if there is a question of poor code maintainability. Generally speaking, people more knowledgeable then you have figure out that "var" saves time, improves efficiency, and results in more maintainable code the those that do not understand how to use var realize.
They probably blame uninterrupted sleep on global warming because obviously people pre-global warming slept in two stages, now people sleep in one state, so obviously global warming is to blame. I can also see England attaching loud speakers to Big Ben and blasting a wake up chime at 3:00 am as an effort to stop global warming and have people sleep in two stages again.
I find this kind of bullsh*t mind blowing that some telescope can detect microscopic formations of bucky balls in space. Not space dust, not some kind of gaseous cloud, but actual god-damned bucky ball formation the width of a human hair.
And to what point. So what, I say. There is tonnes of crap deep in the cosmos that we can't even fathom, let alone detect, but now we know there are bucky balls out there somewhere, woohoo.
I think astronomers make sh*t up just to justify their lives. "Hey look, bucky balls exist in outer space, that is significant, how about handing us another 100 million dollars". And 20 years later they send up another telescope to determine in finer detail the structure of the bucky ball formation just so some squints can have meaningful employment for a few decades.
Of course who is going to follow up to prove they actually exist...other astronomers. No everyday-man is ever going to follow up on whether this is truth or not. "How do you know they exist out there?" they will ask. And after a barrage of bullsh*t math and physics terminology the everyday-guy is somehow supposed to be satisfied that this discovery is relevant and factual and will somehow apply to reality. Astronomy is purely self-fulfilling. There are no benefits to mankind that can ever be determined by pointing a telescope into space except to figure out someones fortune.
Sorry, I don't give a flying f*ck about bucky balls in space and if I found out my tax dollars were wasted on the effort I would be outraged. Solve the energy crisis first, solve global warming, solve cancer and discease, solve world hunger, solve any number of more meaningful pursuits. Once you are done and there is nothing left to solve, then spend your time finding out about spaceballs.
I can't imagine someone being more vapid then to write an article about bucky balls in space where there is real problems in the world. And they wonder why there is a growing concern over "anti-science" among the Internet masses. Its sh*t like this that makes you want to burn down the observatory.
Nope, it is a privilege. The US can deny applications for passports and the passport remains property of the US government meaning it is your responsibility to uphold the rules and regulations for holding the passport otherwise it can be revoked at any time. If you have a passport, read the fine print. While it is unlikely there should be any reason for the US not to grant a passport to a citizen in good standing, it is still a privilege and not a right and there is absolute no grey area when it comes to legal concerns.
Which is why you should not recycle paper. Recycling paper is all extra carbon emissions. With less demand on paper, paper companies have no incentive to plant more trees (tree are managed just like farms, farmers do not grow more product then the market can bear). Increase demand on paper, more trees planted, more carbon is taken out of the air and less carbon is produced trucking paper back to recycling plants to re-process the paper back into more paper. Recycling paper is actually evil but all the anti-science fanatics assume recycling produces unicorns, kittens and puppies with no adverse affect on the environment.
I think Apple purposely make printing on OS X so inferior and problematic because they were anticipating a future where people no longer use printers. Goal achieved.
Seriously, the only way I got printing to work on OS X was to share a printer connected to a Windows box. Of course new printers with Air Print capabilities for iOS devices are nice as they bypass Mac and OS X entirely because even Apple thought printing on OS X was hopeless.
You fanboy's can all go on about how "advanced" OS X was, but if your printer does not appear in the list of "Apple approved" devices then forget about ever printing to it.
Never seen an industry so incompetent in all my life. SSD was introduced decades ago and still today we have to suffer low capacity and high prices and lack luster performance.
Compare this to the HDD industry which keeps surprising people with much higher capacities, performance, and better cost per/byte ratios then anyone could imagine 10 years ago.
Compare that to the CPU industry which is squeezing out obscene levels of processing power per watt efficiency and shrinking their die sizes down to near single atom structure.
I don't understand why they can't slap a bunch of cheap non-volatile memory chips in a massive RAID like stripe set in a circuit board and deliver it for pennies on the GB with crazy performance? Is that difficult? Is there some fundamental roadblock that prevents this kind of simplicity in design?
Maybe they got to move away from NAND and start thinking about something new in solid state storage, obviously NAND seems to be a dead end. Also why not fire every single engineer working on SSD. Obviously they are, as a collective, dumber then sand and stuck in a rut.
Seriously? I cannot spend my days in front of a 10" tablet screen to read books, watch TV, or browse the internet. I am not going to sit in my living room with a laptop on my coffee table to watch content, and I am not going to sit in an office chair to watch content on a 24" monitor.
I agree there is not a "lot" of good content on TV, but what good content there is I am not going to ruin by streaming to or watching on an inferior product. I want full-HD 60+" of 7.2 surround experience for A/V enjoyment, not watching some 480p stereo streamed crap.
TV content distribution is changing and the old methods are dying (i.e BIG CABLE), but declaring TV's are dead in favor of smaller screen with poor quality audio is laughable.
I worked for a company once that finally noticed anonymous access to an internal unprotected FTP site where the IP's were originating from China. Been going on for months.
Not sure what you can do when it doesn't really require a "hack" to gain access to corporate files. I don't work for them anymore BTW.
Slashdot Mirror
LMFAO
Apple created a walled garden which locks you into using their hardware AND their distribution mechanism.
With the release of iMatch, Apple has effectively implemented an new type of DRM, one where their proprietary content can be streamed over to their proprietary devices. Apple didn't remove DRM from music, they just changed the way music and media is distributed to iUsers.
But DRM on music hasn't worked for 20 years, that is why Apple claimed to remove it. How about why can't I play iTunes Movies on my non-Apple device? Why hasn't Apple removed DRM from movies and TV shows? Apple had nothing to do with removing DRM, the industry decided music was a lost cause to protect. The movie industry has not realized this yet which is why the force Apple to enable DRM for their movie content.
Apple had a marketing slogan "Rip. Mix. Burn.", yes, music only. Blu-Ray is a MOVIE format, Apple does not allow support to burn their movie and TV show content.
"Apple has a Cloud service which mirrors your music to all your devices", yes, Apple devices only,
If Apple were heroes, they would open iTunes to support any device, so you could stream media to non-Apple products. The would also support ANY media type on their platform. No chance this is ever going to happen.
Apple also DICTATES what software can run on iOS. Any competitive service is prevented from being distributed on iDevices. If you are going to start whipping out Apple examples, don't ignore the "bad" stuff.
So, don't claim Apple is a hero and Sony is a villain. Apple has become one of the most evil companies that is quickly tightening their stranglehold to create a monopoly where they control hardware, software AND content, but the iMasses are so orgasmic over Apple they are not seeing this clearly.
It is absolutely retarded that people see Sony as evil and Apple as heroes when BOTH companies are trying to do the EXACT same thing, create a walled garden locking users into their platform. The difference is that Apple was a lot slicker (re slimey) and more successful to accomplish this vs Sony.
Sony has a right to protect their online services. This is not about them trying to create more DRM, this is about them preventing fucktards of hacking into their online services and ruining them for people that just want to play a game or rent a movie. Yeah, Sony is evil for that. Whether Sony has learned from past mistakes, it is yet to be seen, but they are learning that they cannot have a viable content system if their users loose faith in their ability to protect those online systems.
While I don't want to support walled gardens, I support any other company trying to compete with Apple, but Apple has a "lets crush them!" mentality and I am very afraid that 10 years from now you can only buy content through iTunes (controlled and set by Apple pricing schemes) and run them on iDevices (controlled and set by Apple pricing schemes).
If that is not the sign of an evil, selfish and greedy corporation, then you have your head stuck in the sand.
Wow, did you just crawl out of a cave and think its 1999?
Why? Its the OS people choose to use for desktop PC.
Seriously, this idea that people are forced to use Windows is crazy. Dell made Windows standard on their PC's because the majority of people ordering Dell PC's back in the 90's also bought a copy of Windows with it. Microsoft may have given them added incentive, but the reality is people did NOT choose OS/2.
Even when Mac computers grew in popularity when they switched to the Intel platform, the Lion's share (pardon the pun) of users are want to boot into Windows, or at least have the option available. Almost everyone I know with a Mac is running Windows on it predominantly.
The reason why Microsoft has not gained traction in the mobile market is because they have not produced a product people want. If you have the option between three phones, one by Apple, one running Android, and one running WP7, people are choosing Apple and Android more then Microsoft.
Also how is hosting Windows/Office over the web reducing the use of Windows. It is pretty much indicating that people want to use Microsoft products, even on non-Microsoft platforms.
I find comments such as yours flawed and biased with an necessary hatred of something that is a non-issue. Nobody holds a gun to your head and forced you to use Windows, chances are you whipped up your comment on a Windows box. You can freely choose Linux or OS X as your desired platform, but the PC market pretty much universally choose Windows as their preferred desktop OS, just as they are predominantly choosing iPad as their tablet platform and iPhone/Android split as their preferred mobile platform.
If you think that consumers are not dictating the popularity of software/OS/hardware, etc, you are woefully out of touch with reality.
How many people are killing themselves trying to keep up production with the demand for Raspberry Pi.
Yes, you are missing the point by bitching about it and not using it.
If you start typing while Metro while displayed, it goes to a search view that filters your 1000's of applications down to a few icons you can run.
In fact, it does the same thing that typing in the search box on the "current' Start menu button, UI just a little different.
Also the good old desktop is still there running in the background. When I upgraded over my Windows 7 install, all the same icons and task bar applications are still there and available to run, Metro free.
Metro is not intended to be the ONLY way you use Windows 8, its a redesigned Start Menu with the ability to write purpose built "apps" to run over top your desktop "applications".
This assume the foundation will be in the "exact" same location as before the earthquake and there is no upwards shift in the ground.
Not to mention that if you don't mount the air compressor and backup generator high enough, the tsunami will take out your fail safe.
Have you not learned anything Japan?
...that is what happens when a million monkeys write an OS and all think they can do it better then the next one.
Apple will wait for everyone else to have quantum computing, and then release a device making the masses believe Apple invented quantum computing because they call it iQuantum.
But I agree. Apple has 98 billion in the bank and is worth over 1/2 trillion on paper, yet they are only focus on repackaging largely off the shelf components invented by other companies into fancy packages and spending way too much money designing retail stores that boast large sheets of seamless glass.
What strikes me as really depressing is that while Bill Gates is generally hated among Slashdot readers he had given more back to the world in the terms of his charity work. In his "retirement" he is focused on trying to solve some of the world's biggest issues in poverty and quality of life.
On the other hand, Steve Job's stayed at Apple pretty much up till his death bed creating an empire where people just thrown them money to buy into a walled garden of content and hardware while Apple shits on any other competitive product or company.
How has Apple given back to the world? Creating jobs where the pressure is so high people kills themselves when they don't meet Apple's quota's or quality standards? Creating products people actually kill for? Creating a market of "want" that is never satiated until someone becomes bankrupt?
Apple needs to start giving back, put some of them billions into charity and maybe try to invent something useful for the world that does have an "i" in front of it.
I sincerely think that Apple has enough money to cure cancer, but the company is more interested in hoarding money and technology patents. Its a shame really that everybody's beloved Apple is probably one of the most evil, greedy, selfish and vindictive companies wrapped in a protective bubble of smugness.
Google is all about performance, making sure people spend less time to do stuff. They measure performance in terms of how many people they kill waiting for a search result or accessing some feature of a Google product. For instance if 90 million people had to wait 1 second for a Google+ page to load that is equal to robbing someone of approx 3 years of their life. If a billion people had to wait 1 second for a search result, that is equivalent of wasting 31 years of someones life.
So, by not having much content on Google+ and not making it very interesting, Google is saving billions of lives.
Failed to read the article didn't we.
I know you were trying to make a point, but you failed.
What consumer has to learn how to use .Net, Silverlight? These are development platforms used to create apps, no consumer needed to know anything about these technologies other then installing or updating them (running Windows update). And if you were a developer you realize these platforms have evolved over the last 5 years building off the previous generation. Even WinRT which "replaces" .Net is mostly indistinguishable from .Net code that its an effortless switch for most .Net developers and consumer will be oblivious to the change.
What did you have to learn about Zune? How to press play, pause, find a song?
Live is being re-branded as Lync but largely the changes are insignificant, having to figure out how to IM or call someone in the post-Live universe will not break anyone's brain.
Also I prefer an app to open up every file type that existed rather then one that say's "Sorry, your old file type is not supported".
Also certified "standards" are almost never 100% adopted by anybody. The WC3 has spent years trying to "standardize" the web, but even champions like Google and Mozilla have not been able to achieve 100% standardization.
The Internet pretty much debunked your comment entirely. There used to be a time when people valued every application working the same way with the same UI cues. But then this Interweb thingy came into existence and people pretty much figured out how to navigate it in spite of every web page being authored differently. Sure, there are "standards" adopted that bring some consistency to UI, but people figured out how to use Facebook which looks different then Twitter, which looks different then Google+ and there are a slew of different online e-Commerce stores that all present their interfaces wildly different then the next.
Not to mention the fact that people in general moved effortlessly from desktop OS'es to mobile OS'es which did not share any common UI cues.
It's a myth that an OS or application UI has to remain consistent and unchanging for 5+ years. If you find it hard to adapt to each new OS version or a MS rebranding, well then, you might be an idiot.
Seriously get a better IDE if you think using var is confusing.
var saves me from having to do this:
Dictionary, AnotherClass myCollection = new Dictionary, AnotherClass();
instead I can go:
var myCollection = new Dictionary, AnotherClass();
which is significantly more readable and removes redundant overhead of typing a type twice. And if you can't figure out what type it is, you should change your profession.
or even better:
var collection = someclass.ACollection;
without having to explicitly know what type ACollection is (i.e. having to hunt through code to copy and paste the type ACollection is defined as).
this is particularly helpful using Linq such as:
var results =
results.ForEach( r => do something );
Which in the Linq world is good because often the generated results is some complex generics collection that would be very difficult to know what exact explicit type the results generate.
Lastly, what if the type changes and you don't have a decent IDE that refactors for you, now suddenly ALL your explicit types with throw compile errors and there is a measurable amount of time required for a developer to "maintain" the code.
Sorry, but var is not difficult to understand how to use properly and if I worked for you I would shove your "guidelines" somewhere unpleasant because generally guidelines are written by people who do not know better.
BTW, generally these days language features are not added if there is a question of poor code maintainability. Generally speaking, people more knowledgeable then you have figure out that "var" saves time, improves efficiency, and results in more maintainable code the those that do not understand how to use var realize.
Giant Smurfs are living where another huge source of rare earth is found, but I am pretty sure they won't put up much of a fight...
They probably blame uninterrupted sleep on global warming because obviously people pre-global warming slept in two stages, now people sleep in one state, so obviously global warming is to blame. I can also see England attaching loud speakers to Big Ben and blasting a wake up chime at 3:00 am as an effort to stop global warming and have people sleep in two stages again.
I find this kind of bullsh*t mind blowing that some telescope can detect microscopic formations of bucky balls in space. Not space dust, not some kind of gaseous cloud, but actual god-damned bucky ball formation the width of a human hair.
And to what point. So what, I say. There is tonnes of crap deep in the cosmos that we can't even fathom, let alone detect, but now we know there are bucky balls out there somewhere, woohoo.
I think astronomers make sh*t up just to justify their lives. "Hey look, bucky balls exist in outer space, that is significant, how about handing us another 100 million dollars". And 20 years later they send up another telescope to determine in finer detail the structure of the bucky ball formation just so some squints can have meaningful employment for a few decades.
Of course who is going to follow up to prove they actually exist...other astronomers. No everyday-man is ever going to follow up on whether this is truth or not. "How do you know they exist out there?" they will ask. And after a barrage of bullsh*t math and physics terminology the everyday-guy is somehow supposed to be satisfied that this discovery is relevant and factual and will somehow apply to reality. Astronomy is purely self-fulfilling. There are no benefits to mankind that can ever be determined by pointing a telescope into space except to figure out someones fortune.
Sorry, I don't give a flying f*ck about bucky balls in space and if I found out my tax dollars were wasted on the effort I would be outraged. Solve the energy crisis first, solve global warming, solve cancer and discease, solve world hunger, solve any number of more meaningful pursuits. Once you are done and there is nothing left to solve, then spend your time finding out about spaceballs.
I can't imagine someone being more vapid then to write an article about bucky balls in space where there is real problems in the world. And they wonder why there is a growing concern over "anti-science" among the Internet masses. Its sh*t like this that makes you want to burn down the observatory.
Nope, it is a privilege. The US can deny applications for passports and the passport remains property of the US government meaning it is your responsibility to uphold the rules and regulations for holding the passport otherwise it can be revoked at any time. If you have a passport, read the fine print. While it is unlikely there should be any reason for the US not to grant a passport to a citizen in good standing, it is still a privilege and not a right and there is absolute no grey area when it comes to legal concerns.
Which is why you should not recycle paper. Recycling paper is all extra carbon emissions. With less demand on paper, paper companies have no incentive to plant more trees (tree are managed just like farms, farmers do not grow more product then the market can bear). Increase demand on paper, more trees planted, more carbon is taken out of the air and less carbon is produced trucking paper back to recycling plants to re-process the paper back into more paper. Recycling paper is actually evil but all the anti-science fanatics assume recycling produces unicorns, kittens and puppies with no adverse affect on the environment.
I think Apple purposely make printing on OS X so inferior and problematic because they were anticipating a future where people no longer use printers. Goal achieved.
Seriously, the only way I got printing to work on OS X was to share a printer connected to a Windows box. Of course new printers with Air Print capabilities for iOS devices are nice as they bypass Mac and OS X entirely because even Apple thought printing on OS X was hopeless.
You fanboy's can all go on about how "advanced" OS X was, but if your printer does not appear in the list of "Apple approved" devices then forget about ever printing to it.
Never seen an industry so incompetent in all my life. SSD was introduced decades ago and still today we have to suffer low capacity and high prices and lack luster performance.
Compare this to the HDD industry which keeps surprising people with much higher capacities, performance, and better cost per/byte ratios then anyone could imagine 10 years ago.
Compare that to the CPU industry which is squeezing out obscene levels of processing power per watt efficiency and shrinking their die sizes down to near single atom structure.
I don't understand why they can't slap a bunch of cheap non-volatile memory chips in a massive RAID like stripe set in a circuit board and deliver it for pennies on the GB with crazy performance? Is that difficult? Is there some fundamental roadblock that prevents this kind of simplicity in design?
Maybe they got to move away from NAND and start thinking about something new in solid state storage, obviously NAND seems to be a dead end. Also why not fire every single engineer working on SSD. Obviously they are, as a collective, dumber then sand and stuck in a rut.
as Lion was definitely the Vista.
Because a plant that absorbs water means the water is gone FOREVER.
Seriously? I cannot spend my days in front of a 10" tablet screen to read books, watch TV, or browse the internet. I am not going to sit in my living room with a laptop on my coffee table to watch content, and I am not going to sit in an office chair to watch content on a 24" monitor.
I agree there is not a "lot" of good content on TV, but what good content there is I am not going to ruin by streaming to or watching on an inferior product. I want full-HD 60+" of 7.2 surround experience for A/V enjoyment, not watching some 480p stereo streamed crap.
TV content distribution is changing and the old methods are dying (i.e BIG CABLE), but declaring TV's are dead in favor of smaller screen with poor quality audio is laughable.
No, think you are very wrong on that. What is the point of UV blocking sunglasses then if our eye lens would block out UV light naturally?
I worked for a company once that finally noticed anonymous access to an internal unprotected FTP site where the IP's were originating from China. Been going on for months.
Not sure what you can do when it doesn't really require a "hack" to gain access to corporate files. I don't work for them anymore BTW.
https://developer.apple.com/library/IOs/#documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/MobileHIG/Introduction/Introduction.html ...
https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/AppleHIGuidelines/Intro/Intro.html
http://developer.android.com/design/index.html
http://developer.gnome.org/hig-book/
http://docs.blackberry.com/en/developers/deliverables/36511/index.jsp?name=UI+Guidelines+-+BlackBerry+SmartphonesBlackBerry+Smartphones7.1&language=English&userType=21&category=BlackBerry+UI+Guidelines&subCategory=
http://docs.blackberry.com/en/developers/deliverables/27299/index.jsp?name=UI+Guidelines+-+BlackBerry+PlayBook+TabletBlackBerry+PlayBook+Tablet1.0&language=English&userType=21&category=BlackBerry+UI+Guidelines&subCategory=
http://wiki.eclipse.org/User_Interface_Guidelines
Yeah, its hilarious an unusual that Microsoft publishes a design guide for their OS because obviously the author didn't spend 5 minutes on Google...