While there is no doubt that amazon has a problem, so does Apple. Look at the reviews on their own website for power adapters. The average rating for a laptop power adapter is 1.5 start out of 5 stars on their own store website.
The problem is that the cords that apple uses always come apart. They are able to make a good charger but the problem is that they refuse to make the cord in between the charger and laptop durable enough to last. I would buy a third part charger in a heart beat if it was more durable then the apple charger. This is probably why people are willing to buy cheaper chargers that might be counterfeits, because even the new expensive ones are terrible. There are ways to extend the life of the chargers such as electrical tape around where it is fraying or dipping it in silicone, but has anybody ever had to do that with a dell laptop cord?
So while Amazon may have a quality control issue for genuine products, in this case the genuine product is still terrible. What is more surprising is that there is not a genuine knock off product that works better then apples power adapter.
Maybe if Apple actually took the time to make a decent power supply cable then this wouldn't be a problem. Honestly I love apple products but why do the power cords only last for about a year before coming apart? I hate shelling out $79 for a new power supply ever year or so. I don't know any other computer where the power chord comes apart. Apple has claimed "You aren't supposed to move the chords." "Don't wrap them up like the pictures or when they new" "You must be transporting it improperly."
Why is it that every other computer company can make a chord that doesn't fray and come apart after a year? Why have they made a product that can't be used as it is designed. Honestly somebody should ask them at a conference why they are incapable of designing power cable that works for the life of their product.
I don't remember the exact details and I can't find the articles on the stupid website of the Oregonian but basically the process was sleazy. There was something about the way they awarded the contracts for the caping was inappropriate. The issue that I think pissed off the people trying to keep the reservoirs uncovered was that the Portland Water Bureau didn't bother filing the paperwork for an exemption from the Department of Homeland Security which then forced the City of Portland to cap/discontinue use of the open air reservoirs. Rochester NY which has the same kind of open air reservoirs applied for and was granted exemptions to keep their open air reservoirs. Yet in Portland despite the outcry to keep the reservoirs uncovered, didn't bother filing the paperwork to keep that option open.
This is not the first time that Portland has emptied a reservoir. This is the only time that it has made national news. One of the times that they drained the reservoir was for when somebody was attempting to pee in it and it was unclear if the intoxicated individual had actually urinated into the reservoir.
The reservoirs in Portland are a bit of a contentious subject. We Portlanders greatly appreciate our open air reservoirs however the City Water Bureau does not. Despite a large public outcry to keep our open air reservoirs our water department despite saying that they were working to keep our reservoirs, did not file for a waiver from the department of homeland security to keep the reservoirs open air. While most Portlanders recognize the importance of controlling access to our water supply we wish that the water department listened to public comment more and acted less like a dictator.
Write a law to make it illegal to photograph anyone without their written consent, or in the case of a government agency a warrant.
it solves the upskirt issue, the paparazzi problem, and ends those annoying red light cameras.
So you want to take a picture of your son/daughter playing soccer . . ... you will now need to get every other parent guardians signature just incase you accidentally take a picture of their child.
However one might consider this that the pictures were taken with the intent to disseminate. Unless they are disseminated without any profit being made then they are being used for commercial purpose. Hence if they are on a upskirt website they are being used for commercial purpose because the owners of those sites make revenue from adds by providing content. However I'm not sure how well his would actually stand up.
When students are called upon to learn creationism in science class, we teach them that science does not need to be based on fact just belief. Why should students not make the logical analogy "evolution is to creationism as behavior psychology is to astrology" and that all are science. With politicians insisting that non-testable theories be taught as fact in science classes why should our students not assume that astrology is also a science?
"The New York Times is not 'All the News That's Fit to Print' but all the news 5 people in a room think is fit to print."
So while not censorship the capital business model under which these papers are run also semi dictates their content. For example if the editors of the paper think an article is going to disturb their advertisers too much and make them pull out, then the article won't be run. Is this censorship, no just self interest. The freedom of the press is tied to profit from publishing the material. If the US government suddenly makes it much more complicated for them to do reporting and investigating then as business they won't be interested in actually covering those stories. The freedom of the press is only freedom so long as they continue to make money and be able to continue printing.
As a student in the sciences, the most annoying thing is when you are writing a paper and looking for sources you find this great journal article for a source and it only costs $45 to see more then the abstract. This article is essential for your paper so first you try through your library, then you look on the web, then you call your friend at a different college and see if they have access to it. I've never met a student that has paid up front for a journal article.
While I am all for having science knowledge be free, somebody has to edit and layout and do a quick check of the articles to make sure they are making sense, and somebody does have to host the articles and provide the delivery system. I had a friend who worked for a publisher and it was her job to edit journal articles and she was astounded and the poor writing that was submitted and confided that some articles didn't get published because they were so poorly written. What does need to happen though is Publishers need to realize that in this modern age they need a different distribution framework. If you take the approach of netflix and make every journal article available for a small price to individual subscribers everybody would sign up. In one state Instead of having say 10 individual libraries paying 5000 each, you have 60,000 students paying $30 each. There is still a way to make money from this they just need to realize that they need to modernize their distribution methods.
Bottom line, the idea of having only certain articles get published in special prestigious journals because of their significance is still a good idea. However maybe in this future age of article accessibility having articles are voted to be part of a collection based on how often they are cited would be a better indication of how "prestigious" an article is and how well it reflects on the author.
After having talked to numerous doctors on whom have been part of admission selection committees for different medical schools this is the consensus I have reached as to why Orgo is required for medschool. Orgoanic chemistry is looked at as a weed out class. In particular, they believe that good grades from second semester (quarter 2,3) in Orgo prove the ability of the student to be able to solve complex problems because the later part of most organic chemistry courses focus on synthesis. They believe that good grades in second semester orgo will translate into a doctors ability to see the long term solution and that good grades are indicative of an ability to plan a multistep process for patient recovery.
Slashdot Mirror
While there is no doubt that amazon has a problem, so does Apple. Look at the reviews on their own website for power adapters. The average rating for a laptop power adapter is 1.5 start out of 5 stars on their own store website.
<URL:http://www.apple.com/shop/product/MC461LL/A/apple-60w-magsafe-power-adapter-for-macbook-and-13-inch-macbook-pro/>
The problem is that the cords that apple uses always come apart. They are able to make a good charger but the problem is that they refuse to make the cord in between the charger and laptop durable enough to last. I would buy a third part charger in a heart beat if it was more durable then the apple charger. This is probably why people are willing to buy cheaper chargers that might be counterfeits, because even the new expensive ones are terrible. There are ways to extend the life of the chargers such as electrical tape around where it is fraying or dipping it in silicone, but has anybody ever had to do that with a dell laptop cord?
So while Amazon may have a quality control issue for genuine products, in this case the genuine product is still terrible. What is more surprising is that there is not a genuine knock off product that works better then apples power adapter.
Maybe if Apple actually took the time to make a decent power supply cable then this wouldn't be a problem. Honestly I love apple products but why do the power cords only last for about a year before coming apart? I hate shelling out $79 for a new power supply ever year or so. I don't know any other computer where the power chord comes apart. Apple has claimed
"You aren't supposed to move the chords."
"Don't wrap them up like the pictures or when they new"
"You must be transporting it improperly."
Why is it that every other computer company can make a chord that doesn't fray and come apart after a year? Why have they made a product that can't be used as it is designed. Honestly somebody should ask them at a conference why they are incapable of designing power cable that works for the life of their product.
I don't remember the exact details and I can't find the articles on the stupid website of the Oregonian but basically the process was sleazy. There was something about the way they awarded the contracts for the caping was inappropriate. The issue that I think pissed off the people trying to keep the reservoirs uncovered was that the Portland Water Bureau didn't bother filing the paperwork for an exemption from the Department of Homeland Security which then forced the City of Portland to cap/discontinue use of the open air reservoirs. Rochester NY which has the same kind of open air reservoirs applied for and was granted exemptions to keep their open air reservoirs. Yet in Portland despite the outcry to keep the reservoirs uncovered, didn't bother filing the paperwork to keep that option open.
This is not the first time that Portland has emptied a reservoir. This is the only time that it has made national news. One of the times that they drained the reservoir was for when somebody was attempting to pee in it and it was unclear if the intoxicated individual had actually urinated into the reservoir.
The reservoirs in Portland are a bit of a contentious subject. We Portlanders greatly appreciate our open air reservoirs however the City Water Bureau does not. Despite a large public outcry to keep our open air reservoirs our water department despite saying that they were working to keep our reservoirs, did not file for a waiver from the department of homeland security to keep the reservoirs open air. While most Portlanders recognize the importance of controlling access to our water supply we wish that the water department listened to public comment more and acted less like a dictator.
Write a law to make it illegal to photograph anyone without their written consent, or in the case of a government agency a warrant.
it solves the upskirt issue, the paparazzi problem, and ends those annoying red light cameras.
So you want to take a picture of your son/daughter playing soccer . . .
However one might consider this that the pictures were taken with the intent to disseminate. Unless they are disseminated without any profit being made then they are being used for commercial purpose. Hence if they are on a upskirt website they are being used for commercial purpose because the owners of those sites make revenue from adds by providing content. However I'm not sure how well his would actually stand up.
When students are called upon to learn creationism in science class, we teach them that science does not need to be based on fact just belief. Why should students not make the logical analogy "evolution is to creationism as behavior psychology is to astrology" and that all are science. With politicians insisting that non-testable theories be taught as fact in science classes why should our students not assume that astrology is also a science?
As one editor of the New York Times once said,
"The New York Times is not 'All the News That's Fit to Print' but all the news 5 people in a room think is fit to print."
So while not censorship the capital business model under which these papers are run also semi dictates their content. For example if the editors of the paper think an article is going to disturb their advertisers too much and make them pull out, then the article won't be run. Is this censorship, no just self interest. The freedom of the press is tied to profit from publishing the material. If the US government suddenly makes it much more complicated for them to do reporting and investigating then as business they won't be interested in actually covering those stories. The freedom of the press is only freedom so long as they continue to make money and be able to continue printing.
As a student in the sciences, the most annoying thing is when you are writing a paper and looking for sources you find this great journal article for a source and it only costs $45 to see more then the abstract. This article is essential for your paper so first you try through your library, then you look on the web, then you call your friend at a different college and see if they have access to it. I've never met a student that has paid up front for a journal article.
While I am all for having science knowledge be free, somebody has to edit and layout and do a quick check of the articles to make sure they are making sense, and somebody does have to host the articles and provide the delivery system. I had a friend who worked for a publisher and it was her job to edit journal articles and she was astounded and the poor writing that was submitted and confided that some articles didn't get published because they were so poorly written. What does need to happen though is Publishers need to realize that in this modern age they need a different distribution framework. If you take the approach of netflix and make every journal article available for a small price to individual subscribers everybody would sign up. In one state Instead of having say 10 individual libraries paying 5000 each, you have 60,000 students paying $30 each. There is still a way to make money from this they just need to realize that they need to modernize their distribution methods.
Bottom line, the idea of having only certain articles get published in special prestigious journals because of their significance is still a good idea. However maybe in this future age of article accessibility having articles are voted to be part of a collection based on how often they are cited would be a better indication of how "prestigious" an article is and how well it reflects on the author.
After having talked to numerous doctors on whom have been part of admission selection committees for different medical schools this is the consensus I have reached as to why Orgo is required for medschool. Orgoanic chemistry is looked at as a weed out class. In particular, they believe that good grades from second semester (quarter 2,3) in Orgo prove the ability of the student to be able to solve complex problems because the later part of most organic chemistry courses focus on synthesis. They believe that good grades in second semester orgo will translate into a doctors ability to see the long term solution and that good grades are indicative of an ability to plan a multistep process for patient recovery.
Well now that we have a way, lets officially blacklist that country singer X. Arrest everybody that has X on their iPod!