Posts by Neoc 1614 posts • joined 13 Jun 2008
Pedant alert: Actually, the line is "never mind the quality, feel the width" and was a sarcastic rejoinder about some fabric stores trying to get you to ignore the fact that the roll of fabric was a ridiculously small width by hyping up the quality of the cloth ("never mind the width, feel the quality").
My wife is a sewing addict.
Googled it: too many companies around the world including an Australian mob which markets "Intelligent Glass" (a.k.a. iGlass). Apple would need to spend too much money (i.e. *any* money) buying out the rights for the name around the world. And suing would take too long. Much easier to name it something else. iSight is nice, if Apple ever decides to re-purpose it.
"The happiest developers turned out to be those working the longest hours. Some 70 per cent of those working less than 40 hours per week were unhappy and unhappiness declined with more demanding jobs. Fourteen per cent of workers putting in 40-50 hours reported unhappiness; thirteen percent of those working 50-60 hours were unhappy. And only three per cent of those working more than 60 hours a week were unhappy"
And you just *know* someone in HR is going to go "let's increase the amount of hours they need to work - that'll make them happy". No, you resource-counting morons, it's the other way around: they work longer hours because they are happy in their job.
Unsurprisingly.... while I am unfamiliar with this particular case, I have no problem believing Apple capable of these delay and frustration tactics. I also love the fact they back-handed the courts and the judge by qualifying the case's result as "ill-founded".
Yep, typical Apple-in-court behaviour. Bad-mouth everyone, delay as much as possible, hope they opposition goes away or runs out of money for their lawyer.
I am not a lawyer, obviously, but from what I gather this kicked off after Google failed to remove the link to the article when requested back in 2016.
Also, as far as I am concerned Google - and Facebook, to name another - are publishers. I have no control of how they massage their results, and they present me data that THEY judge is relevant to what I want (and, I assume, what companies/politicos/etc are willing to pay to be highly placed in the feed). By doing so, they no longer simply display posts by users, they are inserting editorial judgement into the loop... and that makes them publishers.
Someone explain to me why the Pharma people involved in this have not yet been indicted under drug-traficking charges? Correct me if I'm wrong, but what we have here are people trying to sell opioids to the public while bypassing the drug-control laws. Sounds like a typical pusher to me, so why hasn't the FBI charged them as such?
The lack of "enough U.S. Citizens" might also have something to do with the fact that the last decade or so has seen a rise in the denigrating of skilled non-manual worker (e.g. engineers or scientists). Add that to the current "my uninformed opinion is better than your years of learning and experience", and is it any wonder that white-collar workers are in short(ish) supply?
HP get charged high(er) prices for their ODDs.
HP passes on these higher costs to the consumers via high(er) PC/laptop prices.
HP finds out it could have gotten the ODDs cheaper.
HP sues the ODD manufacturers.
HP pockets millions in dollars.
Consumers (who ended up paying the premium in the first place) get nothing.
Yep, that makes perfect sense.
Really I don't. While I can get behind the workers who voiced their opinion on the changes to their work conditions, I don't get those who objected to the "no moral/ethics value judgement" clause.
A bakery in the USA refused to cater to a gay wedding because it went against their religious morals. People got angry.
GitLab says it won't discriminate based on morals or ethics. People got angry. And as far as I can tell, these were the same people.
You can't have it both ways. Where do you draw the line? *WHO* gets to draw the line?
Even assuming that Libra wasn't created as a way for FB to track your spendings even better than it is now <sorry, got to take a break due to bouts of laughter> another major reason is right there in their statement: "This means that for any unit of Libra to exist, there must be the equivalent value in its reserve"
Who can you purchase Libra from (at least originally)? FB. Who gets to hold all that money in "reserve"? FB. Who will make sure that the conditions for converting Libra back to other currencies are nigh-impossible to fulfil? FB. And who gets to collect the interest from all that moolah? Yep.
Yep, especially for front-facing software where the users SHOULD NEVER KNOW THE OPTION EXISTS IF THEY DON'T HAVE SECURITY ACCESS TO IT.
Most users/clients, for some god-forsaken reason, seem to want to have access to all the options they can see even if it's not part of their [redacted] job.
"the captain said enough was enough, declared a mayday and turned around for the nearest safe airport"
I do hope this is artistic licence on the part of the writer. The situation did not qualify for a "mayday" (immediate danger of loss of life or the craft itself), at most it was a "pan-pan" (safety of the craft is in serious jeopardy but no immediate danger exists). The captain could get in serious trouble if he incorrectly declares a "mayday".
...Google maintains, "We are not preventing the development of ad blockers or stopping users from blocking ads," ...
Yup. In the same way that TV Networks who want to get rid of a show don't simply cancel it outright. They stick it in an unpopular timeslot (say, Thursday 10pm) then wait for the ratings to drop so they have an excuse to not renew it.
Actually, not quite.
The people who make the product would be quite happy not to have to display their adverts to people who want to block them. After all, this means less money spent on advertising to people who could not care less.
The *advertisers* (i.e., the people who make money from showing you adverts), on the other hand, want to show the adverts to all and sundry so they can put out their hand and say "we've shown your product to X amount of people - pay up" (I'm looking at you Alphabet).
That's true for *any* industry, sorry not a good reason.
And even if the parts are made by a "reputable" company, you could still end up with a device capable of dealing death. Look at Samsung's battery problems with the Note7, or even (since we are using car analogies) the Takata airbag recall where the airbag itself could shower you with shrapnel and kill you.
The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing
Join our daily or weekly newsletters, subscribe to a specific section or set News alerts
SUBSCRIBE
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020
