If I don't personally assemble the bits on punchcards by hand, I don't trust anything! I figure I should have my trusted JVM ready to go in about forty years...
No one said Microsoft actually knew how to gain market share. The old tools of threatening OEMs with a fate worse than death don't work any more, so Redmond is a bit of a fish out of water.
Because of the discounts offered by the networks (in exchange for locking you into a contract), you are a very small minority. The market for directly bought phones is very small and no cell phone maker is willing to put effort into it.
Ultimately the bitcoins are a digital file that we ascribe value even though there's no inherent entity, and we trust in its value because someone assured us that a computer is sure it's a unique file. So what's a weird thought to me is, when did these accounts actually go to being valueless?
It's like... Pretend there was no insurance or regulation, and I had a bank account with no physical cash, but just a computer entry saying I had $5,000, and the bank has $5,000 to cover it if I need to withdraw. The bank lends out that money, invests it, whatever, and now does not have the $5,000 on-hand to cover my account. Then at some point, the banks investments go belly-up and people stop paying off their loans, and the bank is unable to get enough money together to cover my $5,000, but they still have the computer entry saying I have $5,000. Finally, I go to withdraw it, and they tell me they can't give me my money, and they go out of business.
So the weird question is, at what point did I actually go from having $5,000 to not-having $5,000?
No, because phone makers don't sell phones to us, they sell phones to the cell phone networks. And the cell phone networks don't want you to have control over your hardware. That's why you don't get root unless you crack the phone's security and force it to give you root.
Because Microsoft aping competitors' tactics years behind them has worked so well of late.
A person suspects Timothy of being a murderer and panning a second murder thus that person knows that Timothy is a murderer and will be killing again and thus can kill Timothy and claim defense of another based solely on that suspicion.
But that NAS is likely sitting at your location, which means if it gets burned down by insane meth heads or swallowed by a sinkhole, you're good and screwed.
For my business, I use DFS that replicates our shared drives at all three locations, so I feel fairly confident that an almost up-to-date mirror of the data is being held at two other locations, all of which are separated by a lot of miles. Coupled with offsite backup, I feel the business data is secure.
At the moment my personal data is on Dropbox, with my absolutely confidential data in a Truecrypt container. Still, Dropbox is kind of expensive for the 7 or 8gb of data I'd like to store, so I will definitely be considering Google's offering. Since both work the same, at least for the PC versions, in that each computer has a full copy of the data, if Google goes offline or pulls the plug, I still have my multiple copies sitting around.
My stats are the most current I could find on such short notice and there was no information on India. But, what I notice is you offered NOT ONE SINGLE REFERENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS AT ALL, and that makes your entire post "irrelevant".
If they can mine my TrueCrypt container, then they're doing something amazing.
Encrypt the phone, and set a numeric PIN of 6 or more.
Cool, I'll just use my
rates per 100,000 young persons aged 15-19
country year Total
USA 2000 8
Japan 2000 4
China 1999 4
To be quite blunt, your entire argument seems to be that high standards and expectations are a bad thing. That, of course, flies in the face of the recently validated idea that high expectations lead to high performance
When I was in third grade, we didn't write out the times tables, we wrote out every single number between one and a thousand in numbers and in letters by ones, one and ten thousand by fives, tens, and fifties, and one and one million by hundreds as homework. It took about a week. That is a form of rote memorization and it works.
You talk about Common Core producing "confused, bitter adults.. or the worker drones they really want", yet the current curriculum is based more on memorization and parroting back the "correct" answers and gives partial credit for utilizing the correct method even if the answer is wrong (that, by the way, boils down to "it doesn't matter what you get as long as you do things my way") rather than critical thinking which many say is a hallmark of Common Core
It really sounds like your "bright" kid liked science and school when it was easier and as he has gotten older he has, like so many kids, started to dislike school and you are blaming Common Core instead of actually finding out why your kid doesn't like it. Maybe you should start spending more time with your kid and helping him with his studies, something called "being a parent", instead of making excuses.
All this with one salary for a blue collar job with decent job security, benefits and a pension plan.
True, and that's also a highly desirable state for us to get back to. But it's not going to happen anytime soon, and for some very good reasons.
High-paying blue collar jobs have been disappearing in the US for decades, largely due to globalization. For every person who might once have had a blue-collar manufacturing job here, there is probably someone elsewhere in the world willing to do it for less. And that's bad for American blue collar workers but actually good for the world overall - there are a lot of people in countries like Bangladesh, China etc. who a generation ago who might have been subsistence farmers not really participating in the global economy and now they are moving to cities, taking jobs and buying things. That fuels tax revenues in their countries, allowing the building of infrastructure and the improvement of quality of life in many of these third world countries. Again, that's bad for us but good for the world's economic development overall.
This is certainly an arguable point among economists, but there is a lot of data pointing to the idea that pensions were always a bit of a ponzi scheme. When people are living longer, it's just not economically sustainable to carry costs like that when you could be spending that money on hiring new workers or paying your active workers more. Paying for retiree pensions and health care benefits used to add around $1500 in "dead weight" to the cost of each car for General Motors, as I recall. You saw in most of the recent airline bankruptcies that their pension obligations were the first thing that they shed to return themselves to sustainable profitability. Defined benefit plans are on the way out everywhere in the US - except the government - and arguably should be because, while it's great for the worker - was never really going to make sense in the long run to begin with.
And job security has always been a bit of a lie. In the postwar US economy that the baby boomers grew up in, the economy as a whole expanded significantly and a rising tide lifted all boats. Nobody needed to be laid off because everything was growing. But when you reach a point where some industries are going away, others change rapidly and companies reach an equilibrium point where they grow or shrink organically, people are going to lose their jobs sometimes. It's unfortunate but it's a reality.
So all your points are desirable and the US really does need to find a way to bring back a real blue collar middle class. But many of the things these folks got used to were temporary things rather than permanent. The US economy is rapidly splitting in two, into a blue-collar/lower education economy where unemployment is high and job prospects are low; and a white-collar/higher education economy where unemployment is low and that's where all the growth is happening (tech, finance, etc.) That's unlikely to change in the foreseeable future and the US needs to find a way to bring more of its workforce into the second economy where there are jobs because the first one is just not coming back.
The tablets aren't $300 and the children aren't toddlers. Next time you're baffled as to why a lawsuit exists, ask yourself if you have a problem with the actual lawsuit, or the one in your imagination.
Well, considering at least one Slashdot poster commented about his 3-year-old wracking up charges, I would say at least some of of the children are toddlers and they probably are using $300 dollar devices.
Not sure where you read that, but Apple went through this exact problem several years ago . Kids spending literally hundreds of dollars because once mom entered the store password, they didn't need it again for 30 minutes.
After that , they NICELY refunded all those silly transactions and then made it require a password FOR EVERY PURCHASE.
If 7.1 gives a 15 minute window, that's brand new and backwards from their previous direction.
I'm on 7.0.6 now, requires a password for ALL purchases, even 10 seconds apart