Absolute nonsense. I used to sell bundled software to hardware manufacturers. Software companies don't pay such high dollars to hardware manufacturers to get software bundled on hardware. Software income is 'extra' and doesn't factor into the final price of a computer. Actually often times it is the sales guy's relationship with the manufacturer that gets the software onto the hard disk. I am sure that is what happened in this case. Lenovo is just finally saying we don't need the hassle. They lost more money and marketing prestige in this one bundling fiasco than they've made from software bundling in the past few years.
The hilarious thing is they are offering 6 months of a McAfee subscription for free to Superfish victims. McAfee is one of the worse anti-virus software out there. Very difficult to remove your system. Constant SPAM reminders to renew - even years later. They are trading adware for nagware. Will they ever learn?
Not going to debate IT wages in China / Chinese airplane ticket prices / advanced purchase plane ticket discounts or walking across the Shenzhen border on Slashdot. Maybe I exaggerated a little. My point is plenty people will refrain from attending because of the cost of the airplane ticket alone.
If "More people visit the OpenStack Web site from Beijing than any other city in the world and developers in China account for the second largest number of code commits." then hold the conference in Beijing!
Of course that will not work. Very few people who live and work in Beijing are going to fly down to Hong Kong to attend some stupid Summit. Hold the Summit in Beijing and you might have some impact and get some participation. Hold the summit in Hong Kong and you cut that to 1/10.
It's a 3 hour flight down and a 3 hour flight back, air tickets cost about 2 weeks worth of wages for the average IT guy. And you need a special travel document which most people in China don't have, so they'll have to apply for it. And if you don't have a Beijing ID then Chinese people need a visa to travel to Hong Kong. And the hotels in Hong Kong are $100 minimum per night. Hotels in Beijing are as cheap as $25 per night.
Who planned this?
Why does it matter what the public thinks? I mean seriously, is this a decision you want to leave to some welfare queen, union boss or monster truck driver? Or to a medical doctor, college English professor or stay at home mom with a PhD in psychology? Do they have the knowledge or training to make an informed decision? Do they even have access to secret data regarding the proliferation of nuclear weapons worldwide? Do they have the engineering background to understand nuclear weapon reliability? Have they studied military strategy or international diplomatic relations?
I will not argue the case one way or another because I don't know all the facts (and I have better things to do). But I believe decisions like this would be better off made by a politically neutral entity, through a series of debates using an objective scoring algorithm or even by computer, if an objective algorithm could ever be developed. The problem is in our world everybody brings along their political opinions and we are unable to choose the best course of action. This is especially the case with the present administration.
Online education offers an incredibly equalizing opportunity for people all over the world. At the same time it destroys the notion that everybody is equal and everybody should be given the opportunity to succeed. The reality is if you cannot hack it then you should not be wasting a university's resources.
"Struggling students who make up a significant portion of college enrollment" should not be wasting seats which could be offered to students who are more motivated and better prepared to learn. Harvard, Yale and Columbia should eliminate the admissions process all together and allow anybody who thinks they can make it at one of these leading schools to enroll. Fill classroom seats according to SAT scores. Allow online students and classroom students to compete for seats during the four year process. If you are an online student and you get an 'A' then you will have a seat. If you have a seat and you get a 'C' or lower then you become an online student until you become a top performer.
Students who "show up at college (or junior college) unprepared to learn, unable to manage time and having failed to master basics like math and English" should not be in university. If they were too lazy to learn English they probably lack the financial wherewithal to stay in school - lack of money is the real reason most online students don't get degrees. The problem is not the online school, the problem is the student. Students "lacking confidence as well as competence" need to spend more time reading and less time doing bong hits.
This study only discovers what liberal brains look like, not whether they are liberal because of their brain, or their brain developed in that fashion because they are liberal.
Worthless Science. Who paid for this worthless study?
Making a parody site may be 'fair use', but actually copying CSS and HTML is infringement. If CIAPC wants to create a parody site they can write their own HTML and CSS to mimic TPB look and feel. Actually copying CSS and HTML is a violation of copyright which 'fair use' will technically not protect.
This is an unauthorized cybernetic announcement.