What concerns me a lot more than GM grains is the crap they're putting into meat. It's enough of a concern that countries have taken to banning American-raised beef.
The difference is that the Japanese have high incomes coupled with a strong sense of national pride. They also generally place high value on quality. But that isn't helping them as domestic manufacturing as been suffering massively at the hands of foreign competition.
That may be true, but even more established companies with long term partners in China have suffered a marked decline in quality. And it's certainly not unique to American companies, as I've heard similar problems experienced by the Taiwanese. I'm not sure if the problem is due to arrogance or if the Chinese economy stumbling a lot more they're letting on.
This was inevitable. Apple rose on the tide of an evolving industry. But fundamental fact is that Microsoft defined a world that enabled Apple's success. The problem was that while they shaped the industry they became too entrenched and arrogant and failed to capitalize on emerging trends. Some of it was inevitable as computing, the web and mobile technology was evolving too rapidly for anyone to keep up. Given how badly soured the consumer was by Microsoft they were hungry for a replacement. Apple was there at the right time with the perfect line of products. The problem for them is that the industry has matured. It's in an evolutionary mode so it's become a lot harder to make a dramatic impact.
Apple may have grown complacent, but honestly, they've always relied heavily on their marketing machine. It was easy to believe the hype, however, when they introduced the iPod and culminated with the iPhone. Those were two devices that were uniformly better than anything else on the market at the time. Sure, competitors might have been superior in certain ways, but they didn't bring together the entire package like Apple managed to do.
Since then, however, everyone's not only caught up, but far surpassed them. And at this point, given that this particular market has matured, there's not much for them to do but copy existing functionality. I don't see any new concepts on the horizon; it's all looking like iterations of the same thing. Revolutionary concepts have never been Apple's strong suit. That's always been Microsoft's and Google's purview; they've always engaged in far more R&D than Apple ever has.
I think the moment has passed for Apple because I don't really see how they could realistically reinvent themselves. There's too much pressure from external forces and I don't think they have they have the people to pull it off. They're too set in their ways. Steve Jobs might have had the vision and stubbornness willingness to risk it all in an effort reshape the company, but even then I have my doubts. Without evidence to the contrary over the coming year I think it's becoming evident that the moment has passed for Apple.
I think this is what has the journalists all antsy.
Interestingly, throughout Asia English is taught in schools. In Taiwan it's become a mandatory part of the curriculum, and that may also be the case elsewhere. When it's not, many parents go out of their ways to get their kids to learn the language.
In the US, however, a second language seems to be selected based on whatever the prevailing language spoken by the dominant ethnic group in the area. And that's assuming they offer a second language at all. More often than not the language ends up being Spanish, which all too frequently becomes more of a service to ESL students than value to anyone else.
I find that to be a persistent problem with the American educational system, there's no goal and thinking is often too insular. The difference between systems is that overseas they're trying to make people competitive internationally but still expecting their citizens speak the official language. Meanwhile, Americans, instead of stressing the importance of English for success keep making accommodations for non-speakers.
I suppose someday the US might become a Spanish speaking nation, and that's totally fine. But we're far from that reality and currently Asian nations are economically dominant and on the rise. Of course, it's not feasible to keep switching languages every time some new nation rises in influence, which is why we've got English as the standard and why everyone continues to learn that.
Al Jazeera several months back had an interesting report on Obama supporters refusing to be critical of this administration. A reporter went into the streets and interviewed people, describing various policies as having occurred during Bush's term and assessing their feelings. Predictably they were harshly critical. When the guy informed them that not only was Obama engaging in these actions but the policies were instituted during his administration they did a total 180. Suddenly there was a good explanation for it all.
During Bush's term there were many conservatives who took issue with Bush's policies and were openly critical. Sure, there were plenty of blind supporters, but you're always going to get that. The problem is that loyalty for this administration is as strong as anything I've ever seen. It's a serious problem when people have dismissed those critical of Obama as racist. Talk about straw men arguments.
Maybe that's what she meant. But I'm curious, if she had an "R" after her name if you would have been so accepting of her explanation.
I'm convinced this is one of the most harmful aspects with American politics. People look for evil conspiracies in the opposing party and are excessively forgiving with their own. It doesn't matter how egregious the actions are, they'll find a good reason to rationalize it away.
Many popular videos have numerous low quality reposts with appended logos, intros and captions so that individuals can glom onto the original popularity. It's so bad that it's often impossible to find the original video a year, sometimes months, after the original posting.
Certainly the Buddhists don't take a position on the question.
I'd be curious to know what kind of Buddhists you know given that belief in deities is an implicit part of the religion. But then I'm talking actual followers, not the Hollywood variety with their faddish pseudo-Buddism.
Windows activation is frustrating? I've never had a problem with the various version I've installed over the years.
If you think Windows is frustrating I suggest dealing with Adobe products. Once a computer is associated with a license it's permanently stuck even on old installs. I ran into such a scenario several years ago. We had a purchased copy originally installed on a machine that had long since been tossed for a replacement. We couldn't get the license to be accepted. I called Adobe and was hit with a refusal to transfer the license.
Just a few months ago my company purchased a Creative Suite upgrade which wouldn't install. The IT guy ends up on the phone with Adobe for almost an hour before he's told that they no longer handle licenses internally, that he had to call a reseller. We then had to wait a day to receive that license. The best part was being on the phone with support in India and being told we were being transferred to someone who could help only to end up back at the same guy. This happened three times and each time the guy over there tried to pass himself off as someone else.
I really think these articles crop up on Slashdot merely so that people can engage in yet another Microsoft bash fest. It gets to a point where people are grasping at straws. I don't understand if it's a consequence of dealing with Microsoft more often. But I've got friends in IT who deal with much worse from other companies, so I don't really get the ire. In most of these cases I can identify other companies that have done the same or worse, but they're rarely brought up for criticism like Microsoft so frequently is.
I've been in the design industry going back to Photoshop 5. This well before there was such a thing as Creative Suite, before Adobe bought Macromedia and before Quark made such a mess of their desktop publishing application that everyone switched to InDesign.
Adobe has a complete monopoly on the design industry. In the US I've never come across a designer that doesn't use Adobe products. Using anything else is a surefire way to be ostracized and struggle to find a job. Overseas, where Adobe software tends to be more expensive, and design culture isn't as entrenched in a particular mindset as it is in the US, you sometimes saw other software used. But it was rare and most who couldn't afford Creative Suite just pirated it. Often, the best case was that they'd get a single license and then crack it for use on multiple machines.
In the US, the design industry has screwed itself. They've collectively deemed that Adobe software is The One Way (tm) to do design. You're not a real designer if you work any other way. Making things worse is that like a pack of suckers, they'd rush out to upgrade the instant the next version was released. Adobe's model of preventing backwards compatibility meant that if you resisted upgrading within a few months you'd find yourself receiving design files you can't open. Flash, for example, went from plenty of options when saving in the Macromedia days to allowing you to save back a single version. Whether or not your files feature new functionality is irrelevant.
So the end result is that you're dragged along on the upgrade cycle whether you like it or not. But the most frustrating bit here is that the vast majority of designers never touch what new functionality Adobe has introduced. But then most of that functionality has very limited utility for most people. And while there have been some valuable updates through the years there have been core issues that have yet to be addressed. One is how the UI amongst the various apps is inconsistent despite Creative Suite now having been around for at least 10 years. One of the more ridiculous issues is how most apps in the package, including Acrobat, lack support for retina display.
Knock Microsoft and Office all you want, but they've always been good about updates, their UI is consistent across all apps, and they supported retina early on. On top of that, you can still work effectively with an old version of Office. And most important of all, they don't have a monopoly on any industry.
You're right. However, my understanding here is that Russia had evidence that the guy was meeting with questionable people. So it's not simply that this guy had been mouthing off about the government.
Of course, what could the FBI have realistically done in this case? They had evidence to support a questionable pattern and they're not in the business of predicting crime. So regardless of what happened years later they made the right decision based on the evidence at hand.
You mean like Europe and the African colonies? France and Vietnam? Europe and post-WW1 Germany?
I'd argue that the United States has a far better track record than almost anyone else. Japan in particular comes to mind. Germany made a dramatic recovery after WW2 thanks in no small part to American involvement. Despite continued problems with North Korea, the US was very effective in depending South Korea, a nation which is now incredibly prosperous.
Russia's track record sucks, arguably worse than American's over the past couple of decades.
Then we've got China which likes to pay aloof as they subversively exploit the locals through business interests. Read up on China in Africa. All they want is a stable, oppressive regime to ensure that they have reliable access to resources and cheap labor to exploit. They're smart enough to realize that actually acquiring a colony creates a massive burden. The current model gives them the mobility they need to just pick up and leave the moment resources have dried. Unfortunately, they can't keep this up forever. A lot of locals are growing wise and opposition is growing.
It's not that the program itself creates gifted children. It's that it separate those kids from the under-performing ones and puts them in an environment where everyone is more invested in education. I'm convinced that the most critical component are the parents. If they care enough to push their students then the kids are more likely to perform well. A gift program that specifically requires an application process is the ideal arrangement because only parents who are invested are going to invest the effort. Everywhere else the under-performing kids, and especially troublemakers end up being a drag on everybody.
ZDNet has been known to take Microsoft's side? Even the referenced link lists a few articles critical of Microsoft within the first page.
I think people are extrapolating the wrong messages from current trends. The assumption that poor PC sales are a reaction against Windows 8, I've yet to see any correlation that's the case. Outside of corporate environments I don't think users think that far in their purchasing decisions. If there were a specific shift away from PCs then we should be seeing a corresponding rise in Mac and even Linux PC sales. As far as I know that isn't happening and in fact, I'm pretty certain the story late last year was of softening Apple sales.
In fact, here's an article from 6 days ago. Incredulously weak sales in Macs is due to external factors, but similar declines in PCs is specifically due to Windows 8.
I think there are three factors in play here: 1) Soft economy; things aren't quite as good as some would like us to believe and as such people are not spending on computers 2) Computers last longer; we're no longer in the 90's where a bargain PC could be obsoleted within a year. A decent computer is good for quite a few years, reducing the need for replacement. 3) People are finding their needs filled with less expensive tablets and smartphones.
One other factor that doesn't help matters much is that in the minds of American consumers you evidently can't ever have more than two dominant players. So unless a third entity isn't a resounding success with dominant position it is considered a flop, even if it produces decent sales. Industry "experts" only exacerbate the problem. Everything devolves into a two party system.
The reaction to Google Glass reminds me of the first tablet push over 10 years ago. The so-called experts dismissed it as pointless. They couldn't see beyond the current technological limitations and appreciate the massive potential in the technology.
Sure, those tablets had limitations. The resistive touch screen left a lot to be desired and Windows XP wasn't really tablet friendly. But the first time, years before the iPad came along, Sony tablet in hand as I sat on a subway in Asia, browsing the web on WiFi, I really understood the potential of this thing.
That's the problem with these experts, particularly since they're in a position to shape public opinion. Someone like Google, back then it was Microsoft and hardware makers, gambles on a truly innovative idea. They push something out that might not be truly ready for the mass market, but it fosters evolutionary innovation and refinement now that there's a bit of a technological goal established. Instead at the very least offering appreciation, the experts deride them for foisting an unfinished, poorly conceived product on consumers.
A few years later, after the technology has matured, Apple comes along with the same idea and these same experts gush over the thing like Jesus Christ was resurrected in gadget form. They brand the people Apple has great innovators on par with the likes of humanity's most important inventors. They conveniently ignore that Apple's success came on the backs of others.
Without question, Apple deserves credit for the implementation. The guys who came up with the ideas had enough of a head start that they could have evolved it into a successful product. So that's the question here, will Google be able to make this thing work, or is someone else going to come along and make it better.
I find it hard to believe that consumers have so strong an opinion of Windows 8 that it would be harming PC sales. If anything, your average consumer likes new and shiny things. I think they're trying to find a correlation where there is none because the end result is that it makes Microsoft look bad.
I'd say there are two factors in play here: 1) The economy is not nearly as strong as some would like us to believe.
Consumers are still being frugal; if they're spending money it's not on new computers. I'd venture to say smartphones and tablets is where the tech spending is focused. Microsoft has entered this arena, but they're really starting from the ground up against established competitors. It's nothing like the world of personal computers. As it is, Windows Phone's market share has recently surpassed Blackberry's.
2) Processing power has outpaced outpacing software requirements.
This isn't the 1990s or early 2000s where software development was evolving dramatically and even a 1-year-old budget PC was barely able to keep up. I have a 5-year-old Dell that still runs everything, including Windows 8 flawlessly. It's even pretty good with most games I've tried. There's no incentive whatsoever to upgrade. I'd wager it's the same with the vast majority of consumers.
So the alternative would be to take the Apple approach with forced obsolescence. I can't upgrade my 5-year-old iMac to the latest OSX because of a single limitation, the EFI isn't the required 64-bit. Otherwise it handles most things fine. I'm experiencing some performance issues, but it's not anything that would be an issue for most users.
For what it's worth, amongst the people I've seen personally try Windows 8 they've liked it. I don't have a touch screen and I think the UI works extremely well, but without a doubt it's enhanced by a touch screen.
Coming from a west European country myself I can tell you that I am not happy with that government.
In fact, the universal attitude amongst family living in various western European nations is that the government is going to do whatever it damn well pleases. At least in the US people still hold the hope that the government will listen to them. All they do is lament about how much better things once were and how previously generous social programs have been stripped away but they're still stuck with unbearably high taxes.
The regime can kill a bunch of people at the cost of their own lives, but that is something only religious fanatics do.
Keep telling yourself that.
North Korea would be far more successful in getting their way by opening up and being friendly, even if it were a facade, than the current tactic. They shut down a facility that was pumping tens of millions of dollars directly into their coffers. So it's hard to see any logic behind what North Korea is doing.
Windows RT should have never been released. All it's done is cause confusion. Well, arguably the problem was poor implementation, Windows RT just felt like Windows 8 but crippled. What Microsoft should have done is release a variant of Windows Phone for tablets and keep Windows 8 for the Surface Pro and actual PCs.
Another problem here, however, is the power of perception. People have dumped on the Surface without even using it. Everyone I know who's actually tried one has been impressed. Also, actually owners have been pleased. But consumers default to being dismissive because it's Microsoft.
You wouldn't be so keen on VAT if you were paying it yourself. Europeans don't just pay VAT, in many cases there are also sales taxes.
It doesn't end there, many nations also impose all kinds of tariffs on a wide variety of goods for a variety of reasons. Only an idiot wouldn't expect those costs to be passed onto the consumer. In fact, despite the deceit on the governments, they know full well consumers end up paying the tariffs. This is why, for example, EU started imposing anti-dumping tariffs on Chinese-made clothing. They wanted to protect European businesses and knew that this measure would raise the price of the Chinese stuff.
The thing I find amusing is when Europeans bitch about how expensive stuff is but forget that the fundamental cause is their own government.
There are a number of problems at the heart of what's wrong with journalism.
The first is celebrity culture, so there's a persistent undercurrent of self-aggrandizement. They'll latch on to big stories as a way to make a name for themselves, creating a natural inclination to sensationalize. In the mean time they're not really doing anything beyond talking to a camera. The closest thing they do to journalism is interviews. And when that happens if they like the interviewee it's a soft-ball puff piece, when they don't it's nothing but loaded messages to convey a particular message.
The second, bigger problem is that journalists don't see it as their job to inform, they think it's their duty to educate. The distinction is that in the former journalists are merely describing what happened, with the latter they're lulled into pushing agendas. This guarantees bias. This is when journalists approach a story with a hypothesis, find it disproved in research, but because it violates their worldview they get selective with facts and twist them to suit their viewpoint.
Bloggers are amongst the worst. When the topics are apolitical too many of them turn into hangers-on. It's celebrity by association, that they're somehow a crucial component to someone else's success and popularity. When the topics are political, then it's the worst kind of blogger circle-jerk. Some blogger somewhere posts some heavily slanted story which everyone else then reposts as fact adding their own pointless commentary.
The most obnoxious thing here is that simply looking at both sides doesn't translate into balance. Often times you're just getting extremist views with no substantive facts.
Slashdot Mirror
What concerns me a lot more than GM grains is the crap they're putting into meat. It's enough of a concern that countries have taken to
banning American-raised beef.
The difference is that the Japanese have high incomes coupled with a strong sense of national pride. They also generally place high value on quality. But that isn't helping them as domestic manufacturing as been suffering massively at the hands of foreign competition.
That may be true, but even more established companies with long term partners in China have suffered a marked decline in quality. And it's certainly not unique to American companies, as I've heard similar problems experienced by the Taiwanese. I'm not sure if the problem is due to arrogance or if the Chinese economy stumbling a lot more they're letting on.
This was inevitable. Apple rose on the tide of an evolving industry. But fundamental fact is that Microsoft defined a world that enabled Apple's success. The problem was that while they shaped the industry they became too entrenched and arrogant and failed to capitalize on emerging trends. Some of it was inevitable as computing, the web and mobile technology was evolving too rapidly for anyone to keep up. Given how badly soured the consumer was by Microsoft they were hungry for a replacement. Apple was there at the right time with the perfect line of products. The problem for them is that the industry has matured. It's in an evolutionary mode so it's become a lot harder to make a dramatic impact.
Apple may have grown complacent, but honestly, they've always relied heavily on their marketing machine. It was easy to believe the hype, however, when they introduced the iPod and culminated with the iPhone. Those were two devices that were uniformly better than anything else on the market at the time. Sure, competitors might have been superior in certain ways, but they didn't bring together the entire package like Apple managed to do.
Since then, however, everyone's not only caught up, but far surpassed them. And at this point, given that this particular market has matured, there's not much for them to do but copy existing functionality. I don't see any new concepts on the horizon; it's all looking like iterations of the same thing. Revolutionary concepts have never been Apple's strong suit. That's always been Microsoft's and Google's purview; they've always engaged in far more R&D than Apple ever has.
I think the moment has passed for Apple because I don't really see how they could realistically reinvent themselves. There's too much pressure from external forces and I don't think they have they have the people to pull it off. They're too set in their ways. Steve Jobs might have had the vision and stubbornness willingness to risk it all in an effort reshape the company, but even then I have my doubts. Without evidence to the contrary over the coming year I think it's becoming evident that the moment has passed for Apple.
I think this is what has the journalists all antsy.
Interestingly, throughout Asia English is taught in schools. In Taiwan it's become a mandatory part of the curriculum, and that may also be the case elsewhere. When it's not, many parents go out of their ways to get their kids to learn the language.
In the US, however, a second language seems to be selected based on whatever the prevailing language spoken by the dominant ethnic group in the area. And that's assuming they offer a second language at all. More often than not the language ends up being Spanish, which all too frequently becomes more of a service to ESL students than value to anyone else.
I find that to be a persistent problem with the American educational system, there's no goal and thinking is often too insular. The difference between systems is that overseas they're trying to make people competitive internationally but still expecting their citizens speak the official language. Meanwhile, Americans, instead of stressing the importance of English for success keep making accommodations for non-speakers.
I suppose someday the US might become a Spanish speaking nation, and that's totally fine. But we're far from that reality and currently Asian nations are economically dominant and on the rise. Of course, it's not feasible to keep switching languages every time some new nation rises in influence, which is why we've got English as the standard and why everyone continues to learn that.
Al Jazeera several months back had an interesting report on Obama supporters refusing to be critical of this administration. A reporter went into the streets and interviewed people, describing various policies as having occurred during Bush's term and assessing their feelings. Predictably they were harshly critical. When the guy informed them that not only was Obama engaging in these actions but the policies were instituted during his administration they did a total 180. Suddenly there was a good explanation for it all.
During Bush's term there were many conservatives who took issue with Bush's policies and were openly critical. Sure, there were plenty of blind supporters, but you're always going to get that. The problem is that loyalty for this administration is as strong as anything I've ever seen. It's a serious problem when people have dismissed those critical of Obama as racist. Talk about straw men arguments.
Maybe that's what she meant. But I'm curious, if she had an "R" after her name if you would have been so accepting of her explanation.
I'm convinced this is one of the most harmful aspects with American politics. People look for evil conspiracies in the opposing party and are excessively forgiving with their own. It doesn't matter how egregious the actions are, they'll find a good reason to rationalize it away.
How many of those uploads are reposts?
Many popular videos have numerous low quality reposts with appended logos, intros and captions so that individuals can glom onto the original popularity. It's so bad that it's often impossible to find the original video a year, sometimes months, after the original posting.
I'd be curious to know what kind of Buddhists you know given that belief in deities is an implicit part of the religion. But then I'm talking actual followers, not the Hollywood variety with their faddish pseudo-Buddism.
Windows activation is frustrating? I've never had a problem with the various version I've installed over the years.
If you think Windows is frustrating I suggest dealing with Adobe products. Once a computer is associated with a license it's permanently stuck even on old installs. I ran into such a scenario several years ago. We had a purchased copy originally installed on a machine that had long since been tossed for a replacement. We couldn't get the license to be accepted. I called Adobe and was hit with a refusal to transfer the license.
Just a few months ago my company purchased a Creative Suite upgrade which wouldn't install. The IT guy ends up on the phone with Adobe for almost an hour before he's told that they no longer handle licenses internally, that he had to call a reseller. We then had to wait a day to receive that license. The best part was being on the phone with support in India and being told we were being transferred to someone who could help only to end up back at the same guy. This happened three times and each time the guy over there tried to pass himself off as someone else.
I really think these articles crop up on Slashdot merely so that people can engage in yet another Microsoft bash fest. It gets to a point where people are grasping at straws. I don't understand if it's a consequence of dealing with Microsoft more often. But I've got friends in IT who deal with much worse from other companies, so I don't really get the ire. In most of these cases I can identify other companies that have done the same or worse, but they're rarely brought up for criticism like Microsoft so frequently is.
I've been in the design industry going back to Photoshop 5. This well before there was such a thing as Creative Suite, before Adobe bought Macromedia and before Quark made such a mess of their desktop publishing application that everyone switched to InDesign.
Adobe has a complete monopoly on the design industry. In the US I've never come across a designer that doesn't use Adobe products. Using anything else is a surefire way to be ostracized and struggle to find a job. Overseas, where Adobe software tends to be more expensive, and design culture isn't as entrenched in a particular mindset as it is in the US, you sometimes saw other software used. But it was rare and most who couldn't afford Creative Suite just pirated it. Often, the best case was that they'd get a single license and then crack it for use on multiple machines.
In the US, the design industry has screwed itself. They've collectively deemed that Adobe software is The One Way (tm) to do design. You're not a real designer if you work any other way. Making things worse is that like a pack of suckers, they'd rush out to upgrade the instant the next version was released. Adobe's model of preventing backwards compatibility meant that if you resisted upgrading within a few months you'd find yourself receiving design files you can't open. Flash, for example, went from plenty of options when saving in the Macromedia days to allowing you to save back a single version. Whether or not your files feature new functionality is irrelevant.
So the end result is that you're dragged along on the upgrade cycle whether you like it or not. But the most frustrating bit here is that the vast majority of designers never touch what new functionality Adobe has introduced. But then most of that functionality has very limited utility for most people. And while there have been some valuable updates through the years there have been core issues that have yet to be addressed. One is how the UI amongst the various apps is inconsistent despite Creative Suite now having been around for at least 10 years. One of the more ridiculous issues is how most apps in the package, including Acrobat, lack support for retina display.
Knock Microsoft and Office all you want, but they've always been good about updates, their UI is consistent across all apps, and they supported retina early on. On top of that, you can still work effectively with an old version of Office. And most important of all, they don't have a monopoly on any industry.
You're right. However, my understanding here is that Russia had evidence that the guy was meeting with questionable people. So it's not simply that this guy had been mouthing off about the government.
Of course, what could the FBI have realistically done in this case? They had evidence to support a questionable pattern and they're not in the business of predicting crime. So regardless of what happened years later they made the right decision based on the evidence at hand.
You mean like Europe and the African colonies? France and Vietnam? Europe and post-WW1 Germany?
I'd argue that the United States has a far better track record than almost anyone else. Japan in particular comes to mind. Germany made a dramatic recovery after WW2 thanks in no small part to American involvement. Despite continued problems with North Korea, the US was very effective in depending South Korea, a nation which is now incredibly prosperous.
Russia's track record sucks, arguably worse than American's over the past couple of decades.
Then we've got China which likes to pay aloof as they subversively exploit the locals through business interests. Read up on China in Africa. All they want is a stable, oppressive regime to ensure that they have reliable access to resources and cheap labor to exploit. They're smart enough to realize that actually acquiring a colony creates a massive burden. The current model gives them the mobility they need to just pick up and leave the moment resources have dried. Unfortunately, they can't keep this up forever. A lot of locals are growing wise and opposition is growing.
It's not that the program itself creates gifted children. It's that it separate those kids from the under-performing ones and puts them in an environment where everyone is more invested in education. I'm convinced that the most critical component are the parents. If they care enough to push their students then the kids are more likely to perform well. A gift program that specifically requires an application process is the ideal arrangement because only parents who are invested are going to invest the effort. Everywhere else the under-performing kids, and especially troublemakers end up being a drag on everybody.
ZDNet has been known to take Microsoft's side? Even the referenced link lists a few articles critical of Microsoft within the first page.
I think people are extrapolating the wrong messages from current trends. The assumption that poor PC sales are a reaction against Windows 8, I've yet to see any correlation that's the case. Outside of corporate environments I don't think users think that far in their purchasing decisions. If there were a specific shift away from PCs then we should be seeing a corresponding rise in Mac and even Linux PC sales. As far as I know that isn't happening and in fact, I'm pretty certain the story late last year was of softening Apple sales.
In fact, here's an article from 6 days ago. Incredulously weak sales in Macs is due to external factors, but similar declines in PCs is specifically due to Windows 8.
I think there are three factors in play here:
1) Soft economy; things aren't quite as good as some would like us to believe and as such people are not spending on computers
2) Computers last longer; we're no longer in the 90's where a bargain PC could be obsoleted within a year. A decent computer is good for quite a few years, reducing the need for replacement.
3) People are finding their needs filled with less expensive tablets and smartphones.
One other factor that doesn't help matters much is that in the minds of American consumers you evidently can't ever have more than two dominant players. So unless a third entity isn't a resounding success with dominant position it is considered a flop, even if it produces decent sales. Industry "experts" only exacerbate the problem. Everything devolves into a two party system.
Because "overqualified" is a euphemism for "expensive".
The reaction to Google Glass reminds me of the first tablet push over 10 years ago. The so-called experts dismissed it as pointless. They couldn't see beyond the current technological limitations and appreciate the massive potential in the technology.
Sure, those tablets had limitations. The resistive touch screen left a lot to be desired and Windows XP wasn't really tablet friendly. But the first time, years before the iPad came along, Sony tablet in hand as I sat on a subway in Asia, browsing the web on WiFi, I really understood the potential of this thing.
That's the problem with these experts, particularly since they're in a position to shape public opinion. Someone like Google, back then it was Microsoft and hardware makers, gambles on a truly innovative idea. They push something out that might not be truly ready for the mass market, but it fosters evolutionary innovation and refinement now that there's a bit of a technological goal established. Instead at the very least offering appreciation, the experts deride them for foisting an unfinished, poorly conceived product on consumers.
A few years later, after the technology has matured, Apple comes along with the same idea and these same experts gush over the thing like Jesus Christ was resurrected in gadget form. They brand the people Apple has great innovators on par with the likes of humanity's most important inventors. They conveniently ignore that Apple's success came on the backs of others.
Without question, Apple deserves credit for the implementation. The guys who came up with the ideas had enough of a head start that they could have evolved it into a successful product. So that's the question here, will Google be able to make this thing work, or is someone else going to come along and make it better.
I find it hard to believe that consumers have so strong an opinion of Windows 8 that it would be harming PC sales. If anything, your average consumer likes new and shiny things. I think they're trying to find a correlation where there is none because the end result is that it makes Microsoft look bad.
I'd say there are two factors in play here:
1) The economy is not nearly as strong as some would like us to believe.
Consumers are still being frugal; if they're spending money it's not on new computers. I'd venture to say smartphones and tablets is where the tech spending is focused. Microsoft has entered this arena, but they're really starting from the ground up against established competitors. It's nothing like the world of personal computers. As it is, Windows Phone's market share has recently surpassed Blackberry's.
2) Processing power has outpaced outpacing software requirements.
This isn't the 1990s or early 2000s where software development was evolving dramatically and even a 1-year-old budget PC was barely able to keep up. I have a 5-year-old Dell that still runs everything, including Windows 8 flawlessly. It's even pretty good with most games I've tried. There's no incentive whatsoever to upgrade. I'd wager it's the same with the vast majority of consumers.
So the alternative would be to take the Apple approach with forced obsolescence. I can't upgrade my 5-year-old iMac to the latest OSX because of a single limitation, the EFI isn't the required 64-bit. Otherwise it handles most things fine. I'm experiencing some performance issues, but it's not anything that would be an issue for most users.
For what it's worth, amongst the people I've seen personally try Windows 8 they've liked it. I don't have a touch screen and I think the UI works extremely well, but without a doubt it's enhanced by a touch screen.
Coming from a west European country myself I can tell you that I am not happy with that government.
In fact, the universal attitude amongst family living in various western European nations is that the government is going to do whatever it damn well pleases. At least in the US people still hold the hope that the government will listen to them. All they do is lament about how much better things once were and how previously generous social programs have been stripped away but they're still stuck with unbearably high taxes.
The regime can kill a bunch of people at the cost of their own lives, but that is something only religious fanatics do.
Keep telling yourself that.
North Korea would be far more successful in getting their way by opening up and being friendly, even if it were a facade, than the current tactic. They shut down a facility that was pumping tens of millions of dollars directly into their coffers. So it's hard to see any logic behind what North Korea is doing.
Taiwan? Germany? Or, godforbid, the United States?
The added bonus is that they wont copy your designs while they're making this stuff for you.
Some people believe Samsung may start pushing Tizen over Android.
Windows RT should have never been released. All it's done is cause confusion. Well, arguably the problem was poor implementation, Windows RT just felt like Windows 8 but crippled. What Microsoft should have done is release a variant of Windows Phone for tablets and keep Windows 8 for the Surface Pro and actual PCs.
Another problem here, however, is the power of perception. People have dumped on the Surface without even using it. Everyone I know who's actually tried one has been impressed. Also, actually owners have been pleased. But consumers default to being dismissive because it's Microsoft.
You wouldn't be so keen on VAT if you were paying it yourself. Europeans don't just pay VAT, in many cases there are also sales taxes.
It doesn't end there, many nations also impose all kinds of tariffs on a wide variety of goods for a variety of reasons. Only an idiot wouldn't expect those costs to be passed onto the consumer. In fact, despite the deceit on the governments, they know full well consumers end up paying the tariffs. This is why, for example, EU started imposing anti-dumping tariffs on Chinese-made clothing. They wanted to protect European businesses and knew that this measure would raise the price of the Chinese stuff.
The thing I find amusing is when Europeans bitch about how expensive stuff is but forget that the fundamental cause is their own government.
There are a number of problems at the heart of what's wrong with journalism.
The first is celebrity culture, so there's a persistent undercurrent of self-aggrandizement. They'll latch on to big stories as a way to make a name for themselves, creating a natural inclination to sensationalize. In the mean time they're not really doing anything beyond talking to a camera. The closest thing they do to journalism is interviews. And when that happens if they like the interviewee it's a soft-ball puff piece, when they don't it's nothing but loaded messages to convey a particular message.
The second, bigger problem is that journalists don't see it as their job to inform, they think it's their duty to educate. The distinction is that in the former journalists are merely describing what happened, with the latter they're lulled into pushing agendas. This guarantees bias. This is when journalists approach a story with a hypothesis, find it disproved in research, but because it violates their worldview they get selective with facts and twist them to suit their viewpoint.
Bloggers are amongst the worst. When the topics are apolitical too many of them turn into hangers-on. It's celebrity by association, that they're somehow a crucial component to someone else's success and popularity. When the topics are political, then it's the worst kind of blogger circle-jerk. Some blogger somewhere posts some heavily slanted story which everyone else then reposts as fact adding their own pointless commentary.
The most obnoxious thing here is that simply looking at both sides doesn't translate into balance. Often times you're just getting extremist views with no substantive facts.