Slashdot Mirror

Close.

The first time an app wants to access my contacts a popup comes up and says something to the effect of "App A wants access to your contacts. Allow? Deny?" or "App B wants to access your location. Allow? Deny?"

That choice is remembered but can be changed in the settings:

http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/privacy.jpg (iPad)

http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Privacy-iOS-6.jpg (iPhone).

I can't give you any further cites beyond the fact that that's how my phone and iPad work. I'm sure they're out there if you care enough to look.

That's an interesting analogy. I am curious as to how you think that it is dumbed-down. What features in Office got lost in the move from menus to the ribbon? Also, I think you are underplaying just how much text is on the ribbons. It is not just pictures and icons.

As I said previously, I was a passionate hater of the ribbon when I first used it, so I can identify with your feelings on the subject. But I can't agree with your final paragraph. I am not going to magically forget how to use other user interfaces just because I start using the ribbon. Similarly, my knowledge of my iPhone (which has no drop down menus) has not rendered me incapable of using a desktop computer.

They already have Ghengis Khan, Hitler, Stalin, Simon Cowell. He'll feel right at home.

I wonder if he'll be placed in a disabled parking spot [1]

[1] http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/misc/png/jobs-car.jpg

The spots are technically (and intentionally) improperly designated. See the sign here:

http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/misc/jpg/2042280931_cd407b3ee4.jpg

This lacks the require fine notice from 22511.7(2), and since public parking is specifically prohibited by posted notice (otherwise that whole lot would be filled by people trying to eat at B.J.'s), it's also missing the 22511.8(3)(e) notice. But even if it were so posted, as a private facility, it would have to be Apple security reporting the infraction under 22511.8(3)(d), which would be about as career limiting for the reporting employee as the security person who denied Steve entrance to IL1 because he forgot his badge.

Woz played a joke on Andy Hertzfeld once by calling Jobs car into the Cupertino police department pretending to be Andy, and they called him back and told him they investigated, but couldn't tow the car because the spot was improperly marked. Here's Andy's recounting of the story:

http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Handicapped.txt

Better graph: http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/Income_Corp_CapitalGains_Rates.png

Obesity: http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/October-2011/The-Low-Poverty-Diet/

Poverty: http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/percent_in_poverty.gif

The correlation is especially marked in Appalachia, the lower Mississippi and the coast of the Carolinas and Georgia. What's going on here? Do poor people exercise less? I doubt it. Most poor people have physical jobs, while rich people sit in offices. I think the problem is that most poor people can't afford much beyond spaghetti, potatoes, and bread (cheap starches), whereas rich people can afford protein, butter, and vegetables.

We have to be careful about making statements about obese people's lifestyles. Usually our statements about fat people are little more than racial and class prejudice: "those people eat too much" really means "they're uncontrolled gluttons", and "those people don't get enough exercise" really means "they're lazy slobs". As long as social classes have existed, the rich and comfortable have justified their privilege by claiming that the poor are weak and immoral.

I've been saying this for ten years now, but User Operation Prohibitions, just like region restrictions, on equipment that people own are simply not acceptable.

I have seen so many DVDs with unskippable previews, FBI warnings (on region 4 DVDs no less) and of course the stupid "You wouldn't steal a car.." campaign. No wonder this depiction is so accurate.

That said, I was pleasantly surprised when one DVD I rented recently had just one message that lasted about 5 seconds and simply said (paraphrasing) "For supporting the movie industry, THANK YOU". Presumably this is an attempt to give warm fuzzies (positive reinforcement) for not pirating (rather than punishment for those who do). Of course that could always end up on a ripped copy anyway but that's not the piont...

I'm not sure I've ever seen a strawman so clearly before in my life.

http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/beforeandafteriphone.jpg [netdna-cdn.com] Seeing what cell phones looked like prior to, and after the launch of, the iPhone is fairly amazing.

?

Would you feel more comfortable with "hardware designer" for the world?

http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/beforeandafteriphone.jpg

Seeing what cell phones looked like prior to, and after the launch of, the iPhone is fairly amazing.

Not exactly. In autism research, the last three are all accepted as being components of the problem, along with maternal ageing. From the other responses to my comment, I believe it's more a question of "are you a crazy self-victimizer who believes in Wakefield's nonsense?" or "are you hyper-reactive to the Wakefield crap and convinced that anyone suggesting the environment could be involved must be a Wakefield proxy?" or "are you an open-minded person who knows that we've seen weak correlations with lots of different things, that Wakefield was a Bad Person, but you know better than to jump the gun and assume we know enough to rule anything (other than the MMR vaccine) out?"

The same thing happens in response to a Fox News story: you have the anti-scientific paranoids, the pro-science-but-still-kinda-ignorant paranoids, and actual logical thinkers who let the news be just what it is, instead of buying into all of the scare tactics designed to sell the news. For obvious reasons, this is much more of a problem in the US than in most other countries.

This is the very consequence many people imagined the moment Google announced this. For clear examples of how Search Plus pushes Google+ over relevant results, read this article by Danny Sullivan at SearchEngineLand. Some of the examples include popular music artists, like Katy Perry, who has one of the most popular Facebook pages but doesn't appear in the Search Plus results because she doesn't have a Google+ account. How is that delivering the most relevant results, which was the original goal of the Google search engine? In fact, Google's search engine is becoming less useful at delivering relevant results compared to alternatives, with the major example in that link being a search for "gold price" on Google versus Wolfram Alpha: Google gives you a big, brown box of sponsored links, while Wolfram Alpha gives you a simple price chart.

The biggest reason, in my opinion, to dislike Search Plus is that it continues the trend of search engine bubbling that is filtering the content you see on the Internet today, possibly limiting you from seeing opposing information that might change a currently held perspective.

This is the very consequence many people imagined the moment Google announced this. For clear examples of how Search Plus pushes Google+ over relevant results, read this article by Danny Sullivan at SearchEngineLand. Some of the examples include popular music artists, like Katy Perry, who has one of the most popular Facebook pages but doesn't appear in the Search Plus results because she doesn't have a Google+ account. How is that delivering the most relevant results, which was the original goal of the Google search engine? In fact, Google's search engine is becoming less useful at delivering relevant results compared to alternatives, with the major example in that link being a search for "gold price" on Google versus Wolfram Alpha: Google gives you a big, brown box of sponsored links, while Wolfram Alpha gives you a simple price chart.

The biggest reason, in my opinion, to dislike Search Plus is that it continues the trend of search engine bubbling that is filtering the content you see on the Internet today, possibly limiting you from seeing opposing information that might change a currently held perspective.

Like this:

http://androidandme.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/ev17d3.jpg

Nothing short of zero population growth is going to do anything but slow down the inevitable. Suppose we discover a means of building colony starships capable of moving ten billion people at the speed of light. Further, suppose there is an empty, habitable "class M" planet around every star.

Now, the human race has been expanding exponentially at the historic average of 2% per year. That means that, on average, the number of people doubles every 35 years. It's crowded here, and we've got a starship and an empty planet only 4 light years away. So we load half the population and take them to Alpha Centauri. It took (according to some estimates) 20,000 years for homo sapiens to get where we are today. Do you know how long it will take us to populate Alpha Centauri to today's levels? Only 35 years.

Okay, it's 39 years later (Four years transit time plus 35 years of growth), 2050, and now you have two crowded planets. No problem, Barnard's Star is only 6 years away from Earth, and Wolf 359 is 8 years from Alpha Centari. So we pack up half the population of Earth and send them to Barnard's Star, and we take half the population of Alpha Centauri and send them to Wolf 359. Again, it will only take 35 years to fill each of the planets. By 2093 we will need to find 8 more planets. We now have a colony on each of the stars within ten light years. 35 years after that, and we will need 16 planets, 70 years and we'll need 32, then 64. By 2200 we will have colonized all the stars within 20 light years.

By 2360ish we'll hit a snag. We will have populated all of the stars within 35 light years of Earth. Colony ships leaving Earth at this point will not arrive at their destination before it is time to send out another colony ship. Of course, all the other colonies will be sending out their colony ships as well. We'll need another 512 planets. At the end of another 35 year cycle, we'll need 1024, another cycle and we'll have used up all the stars within 50 light years.

Scientists estimate that there is about one star per 280 cubic light years. In 800 years or so, our empire will need 34 million new planets. However there are only some 19 million stars within 800 light years. In other words, we will have outgrown our ability to travel.

Today we have 7 billion people on the planet. By 2150, your target date, we will have 36 billion people. Your 50/50 by 2150 plan would result in each person having only half an acre of land on which to live and support themself. This suggests 2 acres per person are needed. 50/50 by 2150 would result in 3/4 of the population starving to death.

It's basic mathematics. A fixed resource cannot supply an ever increasing population. Any plan that does not include zero population growth and 100% recycling will eventually fail.

I agree with you regarding cool. That's exactly what happened with Android tablets. The kinds of customers who would drop $500-1000 on a tablet perceive Apple as a luxury brand and Motorola and Samsung as common. So at essentially the same price they will pick the Apple over the Android unless the Android is obviously better. It is an "unfair" competitive advantage that will help Apple for years.

The discussion about OSX having garish and loud features: bright buttons, genie effects... in 10.0-10.2 and having slowly moved to being subtle and understated in 10.7 while Microsoft has gone the other way (i.e. response to aero) is a good example. It shows the key issue about the cool kids, they work at being cool. They set the trend. So I agree with what you are saying. comic.

But it is not just. The issue with Apple is that Apple is deeply concerned about end user experience "don't make crap". Moreover the OSX/iOS community thinks of itself as a community that has community interests. And Apple sets the tone. For example for the last year or two Apple has been losing money on the Applecare warranty because customers expected it to cover breakage. So Apple has been covering breakage and losing money, rather than get the bad publicity of "I had an Apple and they suck, they don't honor their warranty..." that's the sort of thing Android vendors just won't do. They don't protect the brand. Apple works at being cool.

Apple end users (iOS or OSX) complain loudly when the software company is cutting corners. Flaws are made obvious.
Apple developers on iOS understand that Apple will take whatever action they think they have to, to protect the brand in terms of bans. Which means effectively all iOS developers work for Apple. Fundamentally the idea that you are part of a community that has community standards is something Android users and developers would strongly rebel against.

It is not just acid washed jeans. Mac users really do experience an upgrade in overall quality, that is effortless. They are often are not getting the best value for their money, but a pretty good value and they never get screwed huge. In return the developers (and Apple) get a customer base that isn't shopping for the best value but rather is open to them making a decent margin. I'd say a better analogy is business in Europe (Apple) vs. business in the USA (Android).

Read this.

http://main.makeuseoflimited.netdna-cdn.com/tech-fun/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/pirateddvd1.png

If that's not incentive to pirate, I don't know what is.

Aside from format shifting, it's the main reason I never watch a DVD I buy. Instead I rip it and watch the rip.

fuck em if they want to punish success, says I.

You and I have very different ideas of punishment. Being "punished" by only leaving someone with around $650,000 on every million doesn't sound that uncomfortable to me.

As I see it, America became great because government let success be rewarded with great wealth

And yet during some of the greatest economic expansion that not only the U.S. but the world has ever seen, between the 1930s and the 1970s, the top marginal rates were between 50% and 90%. Using your arguments, those should have been the catastrophically worst years.

Now we just can't stop giving money to people who vote for more money,

And yet, by continually lowering rates on the top bracket, that's what we've been doing. We've been gutting the engine that builds growth and pays for infrastructure, defense and social services, while at the same time disincentivising business growth by making it more attractive to pay smaller numbers of people ever more staggering amounts, rather than nudging them towards putting that money into the businesses.

We desparately need already-wealthly business leaders to take risks

There's no reason for them not to take risks, business losses and expenses don't get taxed. As it is now though, the incentive is to simply amass more and more money, and hold on to it, which does virtually nothing for the economy.

I want to "starve the beast" till government as we have come to know it collapses, and (because we have to) we go back to a federal government that only provides that framework you talk about.

I don't think there's quite as much room for starvation as you think. There's the military, which I'd be in favor of using in less expensive ways (ie: not going off on adventures that have no clear benefit to us), there's Social Security/Medicare, which cutting out would leave us with a large group of impoverished elderly people (although if you cut Medicare I guess they'd die off faster so it's a self-solving problem if you're okay with that), infrastructure, which is already falling apart and is only going to get worse, social services such as food-stamps and welfare, which you could cut but I'd expect a pretty hefty increase in law enforcement expenses if you increase the population of desperate, hungry people with nothing to lose, education, which we could cut if we'd like to give up any pretense at having a workforce that can compete with other first-world nations, and on and on. Simply saying "Cut the spending" is meaningless unless you're prepared to offer a plan to deal with the consequences of those cuts.

"it's worth hurting the economy and even generating less overall tax money, as long as the the rich suffer from the tax system"

The rich are not, and would not be suffering by paying higher taxes. It's not a crushing punishment to have to fly first-class instead of owning a a private jet. If the top marginal tax rate was raised to 50% (still WELL below historic highs), these people would still be holding over $500,000/year in personal income on each million they make, and that only counts their actual salaries, not investments and other capital gains (which is what Buffet was talking about when he said he was taxed lower than his secretary). A person making $40k/year will definitely feel the burn if you tax him at 10%, but someone making millions in salary/bonuses? He's still living a lifestyle that almost nobody else will ever have, and is not worrying about paying for the groceries, even at 50%. Now, if you want to talk about raising the tax brackets, so that the upper middle-class (say, up to around the $350,000 or so range) don't get hit as hard as the guy making $3m, or just creating new brackets that incrementally increase at much higher numbers than they do now, that's a different topic entirely and one that probably has a lot of room for discussion.

What about these?

GRiDPad (1989)

EO Personal Communicator (1993)

DEC Lectrice (1996)

PaceBook D110 (2000)

Microsoft Tablet PC (2002)

HP TC1000 (2003)

Samsung Q1 (2006)

JooJoo (2010, about one week before iPad release)

And those are just a few of them. If anyone did some design copying, it was Apple.

Interesting articles, thanks for sharing.

I'm not sure of the relative weight of factors that create inequality (tax vs federal reserve vs looser regulation vs allowed monopolies, etc..), but taxes surely must be one of them.
marginal tax rate vs profit of top earners
Notice every dip in taxes corresponds neatly to a higher percent of total income going to the top earners.

Your pdf mentions that since the 70's, nearly all regulation and tax structures have been based on 'trickle down'. Well, we know how well that works (not at all).

This is a good article that lists other factors that create inequality. list of factors (middle of the page)
The factors:
1. regressive tax policy
2. decline of labor unions
3. min. wage not keeping up
4. globalization
5. lax regulation

Who knew?

Bistro Math says Gartner.