If Apple continues to offer their widley acclaimed customer service, then let them continue as long as they make products enough people want to buy. If they rely too heavily on these sensors and start denying legit warranty claims, then they deserve to have their image tarnished in the eyes of consumers. And image is very important to Apple.
Personally, I don't think Apple's going to be getting much more restrictive on their warranties. They probably just figure it's a bit of CYA when they deny claims to the worst offenders who try to be cute and turn around and sue them.
In any event, I don't own any Apple products, so I don't have much opinion of them either way . . . but I'm baffled by how vehemently people on Internet forums dislike them sometimes. Don't like them? Don't buy their stuff. There are plenty of alternatives available.
Nobody is going to read tens of thousands of news items and try to determine the merits of each. Additionally, the truly good ones will be lost amongst the noise.
No one person will, no, but search engine and social media tech are up to the challenge. For good or ill, the future of the press is going to look a lot more like Google News or Reddit than the Times.
The guy who used to work here with me was basically fired for screwing around on that crap all day.
I don't know the particulars of the situation, but I think an employee should be gauged by their productivity and not just acting busy. If people get their tasks done, then go ahead and check your e-mail, play on facebook, read slashdot *whistles* . ..
If there's not enough work to do and he's got time to play on the Internet all day, then your manager sucks at delegating work or you have more staff than you need.
Now, if he's got plenty of real work to do, and was just goofing off to goof off, then yeah, he deserved to get canned.
Maybe high hundreds, but depending on the particulars of his existing setup, it could easily get in to the thousands. The Doc has to pay someone to set it up for him, mind you.
And yes, it's lazyness: he's a sysadmin, and he knows the security implications. He just chooses not to care.
Of course he knows the security implications. His clients don't. And he can't force them to pay the (significant for a small office) costs of doing it "right." They'd simply stop being his clients.
Don't assume he's lazy, he's trying to do his best for his smaller clients and that's admirable. (I've often found the smaller the client the more of a cheap bastard and whiny high-maintenance client they tend to be)
^Great, now convince a 60 year old doctor with his own small practice and 8 to a dozen employees why he needs to spend thousands getting that all set up.
I'd prefer expanding Portable to include desktop replacements and dispensing with the "laptop" designation alltogether. To me, an ultraportable is not an even smaller device than a netbook, but a netbook-sized device with higher-end specs than typically found in that form factor (i.e. Macbook Air). Anything smaller is a mobile internet device, imo.
Portable/Desktop Replacement: over 16.1in
Notebook: 11.1in-16.0in
Ultraportable (high end) / Netbook (value segment) 8-11.0 in
^A good number of netbooks, while energy efficient, come with equally anemic batteries (stock, anyway). 3 hours is pretty common, unless you spring for a larger battery.
Re:What netbooks are still available with Linux?
on
11.6" Netbooks Face Off
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Dell still sells Mini's w/ a modified version of Ubuntu Netbook Remix. I think Acer still preloads Linpus on some models of the One (Good luck finding one though. If it's on a retail shelf, it's almost certainly running windows) Or you can get any old netbook that strikes your fancy (despite having XP) and try the Windows-Refund route. I imagine you have a preferred distro you'd rather install than whatever comes stock anyway. (I love my 8.9" Aspire One, but couldn't stand Linpus. Running UNR presently.)
I still don't believe they intend to simply ignore the netbook market. I think they'll try for a "high end" netbook or netbook-esque device (i.e. tablet). Not all netbook purchasers are looking solely at the low price, they're popular for the "cute" and "hip" factor too. I'd be surprised if Apple didn't see room for themselves in that segment.
What makes you think Apple has no plans to enter the netbook market with a netbook of their own or some other device targetted to consumers who might otherwise get a netbook (i.e. the oft-rumored Mac tablet)
I don't remember who said this, but someone suggesting something along those lines . . . they meet some civilized xenomorphs who apologize profusely that they had the misfortune of encountering uneducated hatchlings and invite the humans over for tea or something.
^Apple didn't suddenly port Mac OSX to x86. Both versions had been in development since OSX's inception so Apple could keep its options open if the PPC roadmap didn't unfold to their liking. It didn't, so they exercized the option.
If they keep it to netbooks (most don't have optical drives), then they'd ostensibly create a windows market of sorts that contains only ARM-compiled apps. Get enough ARMbooks in the wild, and the vendors will just make fat binaries for both arches.
A mission to Mars would require accelerating something around the size (or bigger) of the ISS into a transfer orbit, after stocking it with 2+ years of supplies, and necessary landing craft, surface habitats, suits, and exploration vehicles, a ready-made return-to-orbit craft and enough fuel for the trip back home.
Because Google are not planning to eat their own dogfood on this one - the people creating Chrome OS aren't going to be using it. I mean, at least Google employees actually use Android phones.
Why do you think they won't use it? I'd venture a guess that a good number of Googlers have or want to get netbooks, but feel the user-experience and OS could be improved upon, and that's the whole reason they're bothering. Remember, Google doesn't intend to sell an operating system. They just want more people to get online more conveniently, because THAT'S where their money comes from.
X is great, but that doesn't make it the best choice for every particular purpose. Google wants the bare minimums to get a machine booted and showing a web browser. Every second counts.
I've tended to roll my eyes at the newspapers whining about Google "stealing" their content. Changing their robots.txt is all it takes to keep Google's filthy little mits off their precious news sites. Of course, that also kills all of the free traffic the Google drives to their site--and pay wall or no, no readers means no ad views, clicks, and subscriptions.
Now . . . what exactly is this new model being proposed? Letting Google aggregate all the little news snippets and blurbs, but funneling all that traffic to a bigger walled garden containing multiple publications for a single fee is what this sounds like. If they get enough people on board, it might work. Or it might go the way of most non-porn paysites on the Internet and fail miserably. (My money's still on the "fail miserably" end result. I'm not seeing what's so terribly innovative about this.)
Newsgathering costs money, sure. And there should be ways of making that money. But it's going to take a bit more cleverness on the newspaper's parts than simply publishing online behind a pay wall. If they can't figure that out, then they deserve to fail and be replaced with something that does figure it out.
Slashdot Mirror
If Apple continues to offer their widley acclaimed customer service, then let them continue as long as they make products enough people want to buy. If they rely too heavily on these sensors and start denying legit warranty claims, then they deserve to have their image tarnished in the eyes of consumers. And image is very important to Apple.
Personally, I don't think Apple's going to be getting much more restrictive on their warranties. They probably just figure it's a bit of CYA when they deny claims to the worst offenders who try to be cute and turn around and sue them.
In any event, I don't own any Apple products, so I don't have much opinion of them either way . . . but I'm baffled by how vehemently people on Internet forums dislike them sometimes. Don't like them? Don't buy their stuff. There are plenty of alternatives available.
No one person will, no, but search engine and social media tech are up to the challenge. For good or ill, the future of the press is going to look a lot more like Google News or Reddit than the Times.
You'll still get your coupons. With newspaper readership dwindling, advertisers will just shift their coupons and such online and into your mailbox.
I don't know the particulars of the situation, but I think an employee should be gauged by their productivity and not just acting busy. If people get their tasks done, then go ahead and check your e-mail, play on facebook, read slashdot *whistles* . . .
If there's not enough work to do and he's got time to play on the Internet all day, then your manager sucks at delegating work or you have more staff than you need.
Now, if he's got plenty of real work to do, and was just goofing off to goof off, then yeah, he deserved to get canned.
Maybe high hundreds, but depending on the particulars of his existing setup, it could easily get in to the thousands. The Doc has to pay someone to set it up for him, mind you.
Of course he knows the security implications. His clients don't. And he can't force them to pay the (significant for a small office) costs of doing it "right." They'd simply stop being his clients.
Don't assume he's lazy, he's trying to do his best for his smaller clients and that's admirable. (I've often found the smaller the client the more of a cheap bastard and whiny high-maintenance client they tend to be)
^Great, now convince a 60 year old doctor with his own small practice and 8 to a dozen employees why he needs to spend thousands getting that all set up.
It's also hard to compete with "free."
[Obligatory Car Analogy]So you don't feel the need to distinguish between a motorcyle and a pickup truck?[/Obligatory Car Analogy]
^A good number of netbooks, while energy efficient, come with equally anemic batteries (stock, anyway). 3 hours is pretty common, unless you spring for a larger battery.
Dell still sells Mini's w/ a modified version of Ubuntu Netbook Remix. I think Acer still preloads Linpus on some models of the One (Good luck finding one though. If it's on a retail shelf, it's almost certainly running windows) Or you can get any old netbook that strikes your fancy (despite having XP) and try the Windows-Refund route. I imagine you have a preferred distro you'd rather install than whatever comes stock anyway. (I love my 8.9" Aspire One, but couldn't stand Linpus. Running UNR presently.)
I still don't believe they intend to simply ignore the netbook market. I think they'll try for a "high end" netbook or netbook-esque device (i.e. tablet). Not all netbook purchasers are looking solely at the low price, they're popular for the "cute" and "hip" factor too. I'd be surprised if Apple didn't see room for themselves in that segment.
Only when they're equipped with a wireless data plan. The wifi-only varieties are unsubsidized.
Small to mid sized computer shops have all of that, better quality selections and lower prices.
What makes you think Apple has no plans to enter the netbook market with a netbook of their own or some other device targetted to consumers who might otherwise get a netbook (i.e. the oft-rumored Mac tablet)
I don't remember who said this, but someone suggesting something along those lines . . . they meet some civilized xenomorphs who apologize profusely that they had the misfortune of encountering uneducated hatchlings and invite the humans over for tea or something.
^Apple didn't suddenly port Mac OSX to x86. Both versions had been in development since OSX's inception so Apple could keep its options open if the PPC roadmap didn't unfold to their liking. It didn't, so they exercized the option.
If they keep it to netbooks (most don't have optical drives), then they'd ostensibly create a windows market of sorts that contains only ARM-compiled apps. Get enough ARMbooks in the wild, and the vendors will just make fat binaries for both arches.
A mission to Mars would require accelerating something around the size (or bigger) of the ISS into a transfer orbit, after stocking it with 2+ years of supplies, and necessary landing craft, surface habitats, suits, and exploration vehicles, a ready-made return-to-orbit craft and enough fuel for the trip back home.
Hey, that's a neat twist on the whole "getting voted off the island" bit . . .
Why do you think they won't use it? I'd venture a guess that a good number of Googlers have or want to get netbooks, but feel the user-experience and OS could be improved upon, and that's the whole reason they're bothering. Remember, Google doesn't intend to sell an operating system. They just want more people to get online more conveniently, because THAT'S where their money comes from.
I was referring to bootup of the finished OS, not development time.
X is great, but that doesn't make it the best choice for every particular purpose. Google wants the bare minimums to get a machine booted and showing a web browser. Every second counts.
I've tended to roll my eyes at the newspapers whining about Google "stealing" their content. Changing their robots.txt is all it takes to keep Google's filthy little mits off their precious news sites. Of course, that also kills all of the free traffic the Google drives to their site--and pay wall or no, no readers means no ad views, clicks, and subscriptions.
Now . . . what exactly is this new model being proposed? Letting Google aggregate all the little news snippets and blurbs, but funneling all that traffic to a bigger walled garden containing multiple publications for a single fee is what this sounds like. If they get enough people on board, it might work. Or it might go the way of most non-porn paysites on the Internet and fail miserably. (My money's still on the "fail miserably" end result. I'm not seeing what's so terribly innovative about this.)
Newsgathering costs money, sure. And there should be ways of making that money. But it's going to take a bit more cleverness on the newspaper's parts than simply publishing online behind a pay wall. If they can't figure that out, then they deserve to fail and be replaced with something that does figure it out.