Is that so? Or isn't it that being the CEO of such a large and well-known company is basically always career enhancing? In my experience, with companies hiring for high-level positions, former job titles are valued often more than actual performance.
Right. But as long as touch is the main interface to you tablet, at least the desktop UI should be designed for that. So in my eyes it totally makes sense not just to use plain MacOS for the iPad.
Another item is that so far they resist giving users full control over their iPad.
Yes and no. What they are currently doing, and it is working out greatly, is having a single hardware platform and a common code base on all devices. They still have branches of the main OS body for each device with the device specific customization. Which absolutely makes sense. Macs don't have touch. But iPads have. Which has at least some differentiation in the desktop UI. Then they try to keep up strong limitations on what iPad software can do - probably to a large extend to keep the lucrative app store alive. And of course, TV OS looks quite different for obvious reasons.
Reading this makes me so happy! Even if it by itself might not be the biggest science news, we know about antimatter for a long time and we are still talking about a few atoms only, but the news that people are actually handling antimatter to the point of transporting it with a truck, just feels a bit like sci-fi actually happening.
That is exactly how it is and it makes the whole article completely pointless. Especially as the article in the second sentence correctly writes "1920 pixels wide".
The ironic part is, that basically all the closed-source photo-editing software (and of course all open-source) are just using the open source LibRaw. Any special features as color profiles comes on top of that. So yes, the camera manufacturers could just donate to LibRaw or just use DNG instead.
Well, it is obvious that between a RAW file and the final image there are a lot of complex processing steps. But that is independent of the file format used. DNG isn't so much different, just documented. And while the manufacturers converter might give the best results, the photographers rather use the image processing programs from Adobe or their competition which use their own RAW converters anyway.
Yeah, they could do it with DNG (I suppose), but they don't really have any reason to do so (in their minds). Personally, I like open stuff, but they did not share my mindset, and I respected their posture.
If a camera company sells me a camera, I consider it a definite disadvantage, if I cannot open the Raw files until the software companies have updated their products. This is also a great way of forcing customers into the subscription models like Adobe offers.
So as a customer, I do criticize that they don't support more open formats.
Not forever. But 75 years after the death of the creator by current international agreement. I definitely think that the exact terms of copyright should be revisited - a lot of usages should be allowed like 50 years of publishing a piece of work. But that needs to be agreed upon and converted into law. Till then, one should expect everyone, especially large corporations, to stick to the law.
When Mickey Mouse was created (1928), copyright was 28 years that could be reupped once for an additional 28 years. So according to those terms, Mickey Mouse would have ascended to the public domain in 1984.
IMO any change to copyright law should not be applied retroactively. Make copyright law to be what is best for society and creators as a whole, not for lobbyists representing already copyrighted material.
> IMO any change to copyright law should not be applied retroactively.
Careful, if we were to shorten copyright, not doing so retroactively would give an economic advantage to franchises already published over those that would get published later. As if the current big studios needed any further advantages over newcomers.
It seems like it would make it more palatable to the existing franchises if their precious existing copyrights were not shortened. ("We paid billions of dollars under the assumption that we'd be able to milk this IP for 35 more years!") But anyway copyrights aren't going to get shorter in the near future.
Because it needs to be that long to have a low air resistance. There are two determining factors for air resistance. First, the cross section A, which determines the amount of air to be moved and second the drag coefficient c, which describes how well the air flows around an object. This gets lower the more "round" a shape is, but the sphere isn't actually the best one, you want the form of a falling raindrop. For that the shape needs to be quite a bit longer than it is wide. So if your car is e.g. 2m across, it needs to be something like 4m long to approach best efficiency. See also the empty "tails" attached to some racing cars for drag reduction.
I think it is already as narrow as you can put 2 seats side by side. But then indeed it becomes a tradeoff between size and efficiency. They went for maximum efficiency. And it is still 26cm shorter than a Model 3. So while not an compact car, not overly large either.
You’re comparing against a car that is difficult to use on UK roads due to its length and (to a lesser extent) width. Perhaps in the US it’s not that big, but here it is.
You can't be serious that the length of a Model 3 makes it difficult to use on UK roads? It is a typical mid size vehicle, there are loads of vehicles of this size and larger on the roads over here.
It is the only sane way to handle things like this and I think it is the reason air travel is so secure that most regulations and practices make sense.
You want the crew to be fully in charge of security. If they think the plane should turn around, it turns around. In the long term it is way cheaper to eat those costs then to start a whole industry about litigation for events like these, probably causing everyone to buy additional insurance etc.
You definitely don't want to give any incentive to anyone to "overlook" possible problems.
