Or better yet, making a new game that people will buy rather than still trying to cash in on a 1998 game which is 16 years old.

This is already available for the iPhone and you can buy it for under $20:

http://www.shoeme.ca/products/...

It draws comparison because of design principals - most notably productivity. So, some things seem similar but it is a different (in a good way) experience from Gnome, KDE, Windows 7, and OSX.

This journal entry by the elementary team may shed some light: http://elementaryos.org/journa...

It's been a bit of a wait for some since this one updates from the 12.04 Ubuntu stream to the latest stable (14.04).

... FreeWinXP. I'm sure it'll be out any day now.

This is exactly on point! Sure, having discussions and making students think deeper may affect their quiz/exam scores. However, there are countless examples of how these exams are no more than simulations of real life and how being able to respond to new situations creatively is the true measure of intelligence (sorry, I'm too lazy to bring any references but surely a Google search will reveal countless cases).

I now teach university undergraduate engineering classes after working in the industry for many years. What I now realize is that the people typically in this role have never worked as an Engineer and have NO CONTEXT to what they're actually teaching. With no context, how can these people be fair at assessment? In reality, either the product ships or it doesn't. But exams often become about solving some tricky problem that is from an 1800's analytical paper. Not to say these case studies aren't relevant, but the point is the objectives of education SHOULD BE some skill set as opposed to scoring high on some exam.

All that said, I believe the criteria used to make the conclusions in the summary are way off base and also lack context. Parents, don't stop debating with your children about what they're learning. People should balance questioning everything they are told with heuristics and best practices in order to "get things done." Test scores be damned if we can't even assemble lawn furniture at the end of the day.

I think the issue is that the networks don't seem to want you to wait a week unless you pay them. My point above is really that they should focus on getting the eyes on the product rather than billing each and ever viewer that doesn't watch when they decide you should.

Google figured this out ... we're all customers, but none of us pay them directly. That's how they can make money. If Google charged me a subscription to do web searches, they'd have died a decade ago.

Interesting indeed. I wonder if Netflix will become what HBO GO could have been sooner? They're starting to develop some stuff of their own and don't require cable at all.

Often the "client" and "customer" are different groups. Advertisers pay based on number of viewers which is why ratings are so heavily measured and talked about. Rarely does the customer pay the networks directly except in certain cases like HBO and Showtime.

I do believe the subscription model will rule someday, I'd say this is equivalent to radio play for CD sales. It's hard to directly link them but it's clear there is a correlation.

ABC is making a bad decision here because they don't have the "juice" needed to demand a subscription (yet?). I think people will just find something else to watch, record it, or find a torrent.

... will ensure they don't buy anything. Similarly, making it hard for people to watch will ensure they don't. If they do want to watch, more will look for torrents (amongst other things) than go back to the stone age days (before PVR's, etc). People nowadays will not bother being inconvenienced unless you have awesome stuff - although it's not my cup of tea, Apple is an example of where people will stand in line for hours and be inconvenienced.

I wouldn't say ABC shows are worth putting off tennis practice (or whatever hobby you have) for. This will not end well.

That would be like throwing chairs on the deck of the Titanic!

... perhaps the lawsuit wasn't such a great idea? I believe it's likely the case that Apple needs Samsung. Also, the billion dollar lawsuit is like a tube of toothpaste in this scenario. Meaning that you squish one end only expands the other end (i.e. squishing does not change the volume if the cap is on).

I believe this is a trap to get everyone to enforce full justice in order to give them a case study for which to use as a basis for future lawsuits.

Tread carefully folks.

EXACTLY!