And yet, I read about a team in Cambridge in the UK who have a new low temperature process that can create graphene in industrial quantities.
Do you expect the New Yorker to do actual research (or even a google search) before writing an article or something?
Maybe they are looking into how badly the students were ripped off by forcing ipads on them.
No joke, there's only the vast majority of alternative products that provide the same benefits at a lower cost. I guess they may lack the fruity logo on the back...
If they hired better teachers, what would the teachers' unions do with the worthless teachers? In this case I'd like to know what the FBI is investigating. Graft? Or are they investigating the students' "cybercrime" of unlocking the iPads?
The FBI Hasn't been forthcoming with that detail yet. Assumptions abound.
The difference is choice.
In the Apple model, yes, they have built that walled garden. Yes, they are generally sealed units with limited upgrade options. But with Apple in 2014, they're just one vendor among many viable alternatives. Depending on who you ask, they're somewhere between 8% and 15% of the market. That leaves a huge selection of alternate vendors from which to choose.
Microsoft, lest anyone forget, is a convicted (unfortunately never punished) monopolist. Is the late '90s they had something like 98% marketshare. In MS' world, you have no choice but to submit to his will and his ecosystem. You would not be free to leave and switch vendors because there would be no alternatives available. And while Gates may have recently been able to buy them a better reputation with his so-called charity work; you're a damn fool if you think he is anything but a viciously ruthless businessman who wanted nothing less than complete dominance over you.
Hmm.. I kind of hate defending Microsoft after having spent so much effort supporting the MS boycott. However, locking you into hardware vendors was never a MS thing. MS generally did their evil by forcing companies to sell MS and no alternative OS based products. They also did their thing buy stealing competing software outright. In the 90's there were thousands of examples on the now defunct vcnet.com (the url was vcnet.com/bms but no more) boycott site where the evil was being documented.
Bash MS, yes. But do it for valid reasons or you just shoot holes in your cause.
Cool, the people involved in this are going before a jury, right?
Whoah there. Corporations are only people when it's in their benefit.
Minimum basic cable price (if I don't want to sell my entire soul to the cableco) where I am is $39.48 + $3.99 for a converter box
They blatantly lie and claim that the box is "necessary" "because digital", but it isn't. The real reason they want you to use the box is because of their unilateral insistence on encrypting even the signals that you'd otherwise be able to get unencrypted from an antenna anyway, so that they can charge you a rental fee. But even then, it still isn't necessary because you can get a CableCard instead.
When I had cable TV (only because the TV + internet bundle was cheaper than internet-only that year), I refused the box (and refused to be charged for the box) as a matter of principle.
I used a cablecard for a few years. You still have to rent the card, although in my case it was $1 cheaper than a box. They still get to know what you're watching. You have to provide "guide" services somehow, as cablecards don't include that functionality.
Depending on where you live or who your provider is you may be able to get analog cable despite the claims. My local cable company tells you that it's digital only and you must have a card/box. My dad plugged his coax straight into his tv (which does not have or support a card) and he gets about 100 channels. So, I say try plugging the coax in and find out what is really what.
Reminds me of the gratuitous bong-rip philosophy you see on Ashton Kutcher's news site A+, which is bizarrely one of the most-viewed websites in the US.
Never heard of it before.
And who or what is Ashton Kutcher?
He's an American actor. Did a tv program called "that 70's show". I think he does chick flick type movies now, not really sure.
I myself only heard about it from an article making fun of it:
Thanks, that was downright hilarious. I think the idea posited by cracked that a+ is a gag is likely to be accurate.
And I care about one more crappy corporate-controlled portal site why? Other than the "will they set up a GeoCities page next"-esque shock-value that any company in 2014 still believes their customers give the least damn about their ISP's home page, of course. If Verizon doesn't want news about the ways the intelligence community and Verizon conspire to rape us all, hey, their portal. And if I want actual news, hey, not their portal. It all balances out.
TFA made it sound like they were hiring "reporters" (sounded to me more like bloggers) who are actually writing content rather than running a portal.
Reminds me of the gratuitous bong-rip philosophy you see on Ashton Kutcher's news site A+, which is bizarrely one of the most-viewed websites in the US.
Never heard of it before.
If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.
