It's sad that if the judge doesn't spell out every little detail of how the apology should appear, the company will take advantage and try to 'hide' it.
The judge needs to assign further penalties on Apple. And every time they do something like this, slap on another, larger penalty. Like the old punishment for kids that always interrupt or talk back.
"You're grounded for the weekend. And don't argue."
"That's not fair!"
"Two weekends. Don't say another word."
"Three. Wanna go for four?"
"You're going to post an apology."
"Fine." *hides it in the paper*
"Not good enough.$100,000, and do it again."
"Fine." *hides it on the website*
"Not good enough. $500,000. Wanna try for a million?"
The one thing you could do to save on fuel is possibly power the non-essential technology from solar. The tv's, sound system, charging stations, satellite phones, and the like. You probably wouldn't see huge tonnages of fuel saved per flight. But over the course of a year, with all of their planes, it would probably add up to a noticeable savings for airlines and pay for itself in relatively little time.
And if it's night, the plane isn't above cloud cover, or there's an issue with the solar system, it should be a simple matter of automatically switching back to standard power. (I'd assume the planes wouldn't carry batteries due to extra weight)
It's the perfect combination of drinking and driving!
Every company of significant size/market share should expect to be investigated for anti-competitive practices. If they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about.
Anyone calling for an investigation of Google, should also be calling for investigations into Comcast, AT&T, and other large media providers.
So...The staff, a bunch of teachers, are IT illiterate. And, instead of TEACHING them how to actually use a computer, the answer is...to buy them iPads to try and avoid the issue.
No teacher has a right to complain about students not wanting to learn if they're not willing to learn how to use the tools required by their job.
And when are school boards and parents going to learn that throwing fancy new tech at a problem doesn't fix the problem...or even the symptoms of the problem? Changing tech doesn't fix things. Changing PROCESSES fixes things.
The first week, about 80% of my Olympics viewing was through the streaming. Not only was it live, but I got to watch events that would never get covered (or get more than 10 minutes of tv time several hours later). And I do applaud NBC for streaming every single event live. At least they got something right.
I usually preferred watching without commentary. It was nice not getting my ear talked off the whole time. It was also very nice that commentary could be turned off (and back on when I did want it) for those events with it.
Of course, AT&T throttled me the second week because god forbid I actually use my unlimited data plan through an app on a device they sell. So I pretty much couldn't stream during the weekday. But I definitely would have, otherwise.
Their website and app needed A LOT of work. Not very friendly at all, and it would take forever for the links to ended events to be removed.
So it's better they just fire everyone and go out of business?
That makes no sense.
If they're doing that, so what?
Sounds like the company was about ready to go out of business anyway. So those jobs were gone no matter what.
If moving to another country keeps them in business, then so be it.
I don't see Nook in the list. Although their site says other devices may come later.
Anyone else see something specific about the Nook?
Perhaps it would be better if universities focused on programming skill and critical thinking rather than having to learn any particular language.
Maybe instead of learning, say, a C variant through all the years of college (which is really good to teach some things, and really bad to teach others), it would be better to use a language that, while not necessarily some type of industry standard, is actually a good tool for teaching a variety of programming techniques and critical thought. What good is it to learn to use a language if you can't program worth a damn?
Back in college, half my intro to programming class bombed out because it focused on how to use C++ instead of how to actually think about programming. Only those of us who had been programming in C++ beforehand were able to get a decent grade.
Shouldn't learning how to program be relatively language agnostic? Sure, you won't get to the fancy powerful tricks of a particular language in the classroom. But if you know how to program, not only should you be able to learn any language (assuming appropriate features and training materials), but you'll be able to pick up all that fancy stuff either on your own, in advanced language specific classes, or from work.
This is the theory that Jack built. This is the flaw that lay in the theory that Jack built. This is the palpable verbal haze that hid the flaw that lay in...