Because compared to the windows mobile device I had for three years previously, the iPhone's interface and tight integration of functionality feels like having a scented massage from a bikini-clad swedish pin-up girl.
Pretty much *everything* I wanted to be able to do previously is now possible in an elegant way, and I'm serendipitously finding that loads of oh-so-simple intuitive shortcuts have been quietly added and left to be discovered.
I won't bore you with details, but there is a good comparison to be made with open source - you sometimes need the BDFL to bring out the best in a project, simply to avoid the endless conflicts and design by committee which can lead to a product which does everything poorly, rather than doing a small number of things in a superbly polished way.
I have only bought an iPhone in the last three months, having held back since their launch on the grounds that slack-jawed fanboi drivel was not something to take seriously, but I've had to grudgingly admit that Apple have got something very right. Perhaps best summed up with Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous quote (take note, usability engineers!):
"I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity."
Because MS heavily 'discounts' OEM Windows licences, allowing them to revoke the discounts and remove them OEM's competitive advantage the moment they get a whiff of a viable linux desktop being offered.
They're bastards for doing it of course, but it is a good businees strategy and I doubt they're the first to use it.
Its rare for techies to get involved in Olympic sports, but what you've just witnessed is the first underhand attempt to make cubicle-rage into a competitive event.
Purchase 1000 printers
Subtly modify each one to bork random pages for no reason
Install them everywhere, organise the techies into rival teams and explain the rules:
'always blame the user'
'never back down'.
The first support team to cause the competitors enough frustration to smash their printers into little bits wins Gold.
Although stupid people die more, so you tend to get slightly more bright people in older age groups, meaning that actually, slightly less than 50% of people are of below average intelligence.
If people came and wasted their time, they did so voluntarily
Not true. 'Voluntary' implies full knowledge of what you are getting into, so they would need to be aware that there was really no job on offer for your statement to hold.
When you steal a tool out of someone's toolbox, that makes you anti-them.
Not necessarily. The US is a country, not just a group, so US environmentalists would therefore be anti-themselves, which makes no sense. It's also difficult to steal a tool when your taxes and votes are what put it in there in the first place. Remember that attempting to make a government do what you want is the core idea of democracy. Can you be anti-American when exercising your constitutional rights?
You also side-step the issue of who gets to define what 'American' is. Currently it seems to mean 'Patriotic without question', which is really just a way of saying that it's wrong to question what your government tells you, particularly if they're telling you to make America more aggressive and mighty. Is that a good way to be?
what if the USN is operating off of Iran or Venezuala for some reason and they fire off a torpedo and sink a carrier
'for some reason' hides a multitude of sins. What possible legitimate reason could there be for military operations off the coast of Venezuela? The idea of a just war seems to be sadly absent from US foreign policy these days - odd for an apparently Christian nation. Having a more vulnerable fleet is only a moral problem if you are involved in a moral war, otherwise I'd say it would be a good way to force a government to think harder about diplomacy, which might be a secondary agenda for 'environmentalists'.
Of course, 'moral' and 'public interest' don't always coincide, so maybe the court saw 'public interest' and 'global military dominance' as one and the same, which is cause for concern in itself.
areas free from herbicides, such as national parks "provide no refuge."
National parks may be free from pesticide, but they still have a long history of human interference. You may be shocked to learn the truth about the enormous amount of biodiversity lost in Yellowstone since it was created. Mostly through 'protecting' it from interference by native americans, (who had been keeping everything nicely in balance for thousands of years) and trying to protect predator species, which then wiped out prey species in a predictably malthusian way. There is no such thing as an environment free from human interference.
Actually, I'd prefer it if that technology was in the hands of a coutry with a better record regarding bombing of other countries for no good reason. China, Russia, Israel, Iran have bombed fewer countries combined since 1945 than the US alone.
If some people enjoy looking at such images, that may be repulsive, but no body is getting hurt.
Has it not occurred to you that by creating a highly lucrative market for the consumption of such images, they create an enormous commercial pressure for the abuse of children by those who wish to profit by it?
You would not make the same argument with regard to a hitman - the person who paid them is not without responsibility and was in fact the real instigator of the crime. How can you possibly argue that someone who will knowingly pay others to abuse children is doing no harm??
Some very good points, but as I understand it (if you'll pardon my lack of references), the often conflicting commands of the Quran are a large part of the problem. For every peaceful/sensible command there is a bloodthirsty/unpleasant one that a hateful preacher can counter it with. The same can be said for the Bible of course, but it does make me wonder why God's prophets can't just be consistent with themselves.
As an aside, it may not really be the Quran that is at fault with regards to suicide bombings, but the sexual mores of arab culture (see point 4), which due to polygamy, leave a large pool of young men with no wife and no access to casual sex. Far easier to whip people up into an angry frenzy if they're not getting any.
The label conservative, these days, means 'radical religious nationalist'. It has nothing to do with the traditional ethos of small government and individual freedoms
I thought that conservative (as in right wing) meant, strictly controlled personal freedoms and small government as in relaxed economic freedoms. e.g. left wing liberal: legalise pot & same sex marriage, state taxes corporations and distributes wealth to poor via social security; conservative right wing: drug control, abortion control, sexual 'normalness' only, minimal taxation of the rich, poor fend for themselves.
Speaking as a Brit, I find that amazing. Heartening to know that people in the US care for their country and want to defend it etc, and kudos to all for their bravery, but Iraq? Seriously? How can morale be so high when the body count grows and its clear to all by now that Saddam had no WMDs, had nothing to do with 9/11 and despite being a first class dick, didn't allow Al-Qaeda operatives any freedom to start building up a power base in Iraq (which is now swarming with them).
I don't intend to troll - I'm genuinely curious. Why is the Iraq war seen as successful?
Interesting how this very expensive technology is being used to do what can be achieved easily using a cheaply produced drug. The goal of the therapy is to re-experience the taumatic memory without being overcome by fear, so that you can re-evaluate and process the experience. Far more effective to temporarily disable the parts of your mind that feel fear and pain during therapy and its a proven technique. Unfortunately, the drug in question is currently illegal.
Ironic that the fear and anxiety of the population at large about 'drugs' means that fear and anxiety in individuals is far harder to treat than it needs to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Because compared to the windows mobile device I had for three years previously, the iPhone's interface and tight integration of functionality feels like having a scented massage from a bikini-clad swedish pin-up girl.
Pretty much *everything* I wanted to be able to do previously is now possible in an elegant way, and I'm serendipitously finding that loads of oh-so-simple intuitive shortcuts have been quietly added and left to be discovered.
I won't bore you with details, but there is a good comparison to be made with open source - you sometimes need the BDFL to bring out the best in a project, simply to avoid the endless conflicts and design by committee which can lead to a product which does everything poorly, rather than doing a small number of things in a superbly polished way.
I have only bought an iPhone in the last three months, having held back since their launch on the grounds that slack-jawed fanboi drivel was not something to take seriously, but I've had to grudgingly admit that Apple have got something very right. Perhaps best summed up with Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous quote (take note, usability engineers!):
"I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity."
Amazing how criminals are always the first to use any new tech.
Name a one thing British ever made right.
Canada.
Oddly enough, they're all popular on Slashdot!
Yes, but you're on Slashdot too, so maybe you like them as well and you're just being sarcastic.
How can I tell which...
Oh dear.
Because MS heavily 'discounts' OEM Windows licences, allowing them to revoke the discounts and remove them OEM's competitive advantage the moment they get a whiff of a viable linux desktop being offered.
They're bastards for doing it of course, but it is a good businees strategy and I doubt they're the first to use it.
'always blame the user'
'never back down'.
being shielded and safe from some paternalistic overseeing power entity should be a right.
Such databases should be in the private sphere, held by someone like the clergy
Hmmm...
Although stupid people die more, so you tend to get slightly more bright people in older age groups, meaning that actually, slightly less than 50% of people are of below average intelligence.
Small comfort eh?
If people came and wasted their time, they did so voluntarily
Not true. 'Voluntary' implies full knowledge of what you are getting into, so they would need to be aware that there was really no job on offer for your statement to hold.
When you steal a tool out of someone's toolbox, that makes you anti-them.
Not necessarily. The US is a country, not just a group, so US environmentalists would therefore be anti-themselves, which makes no sense. It's also difficult to steal a tool when your taxes and votes are what put it in there in the first place. Remember that attempting to make a government do what you want is the core idea of democracy. Can you be anti-American when exercising your constitutional rights?
You also side-step the issue of who gets to define what 'American' is. Currently it seems to mean 'Patriotic without question', which is really just a way of saying that it's wrong to question what your government tells you, particularly if they're telling you to make America more aggressive and mighty. Is that a good way to be?
what if the USN is operating off of Iran or Venezuala for some reason and they fire off a torpedo and sink a carrier
'for some reason' hides a multitude of sins. What possible legitimate reason could there be for military operations off the coast of Venezuela? The idea of a just war seems to be sadly absent from US foreign policy these days - odd for an apparently Christian nation. Having a more vulnerable fleet is only a moral problem if you are involved in a moral war, otherwise I'd say it would be a good way to force a government to think harder about diplomacy, which might be a secondary agenda for 'environmentalists'.
Of course, 'moral' and 'public interest' don't always coincide, so maybe the court saw 'public interest' and 'global military dominance' as one and the same, which is cause for concern in itself.
Sounds like learned helplessness
I currently work for an unamed large geotechnical company
Given that they can't even think of a name yet, their boneheadedness with the network doesn't surprise me.
areas free from herbicides, such as national parks "provide no refuge."
National parks may be free from pesticide, but they still have a long history of human interference. You may be shocked to learn the truth about the enormous amount of biodiversity lost in Yellowstone since it was created. Mostly through 'protecting' it from interference by native americans, (who had been keeping everything nicely in balance for thousands of years) and trying to protect predator species, which then wiped out prey species in a predictably malthusian way. There is no such thing as an environment free from human interference.
Actually, I'd prefer it if that technology was in the hands of a coutry with a better record regarding bombing of other countries for no good reason. China, Russia, Israel, Iran have bombed fewer countries combined since 1945 than the US alone.
If some people enjoy looking at such images, that may be repulsive, but no body is getting hurt.
Has it not occurred to you that by creating a highly lucrative market for the consumption of such images, they create an enormous commercial pressure for the abuse of children by those who wish to profit by it?
You would not make the same argument with regard to a hitman - the person who paid them is not without responsibility and was in fact the real instigator of the crime. How can you possibly argue that someone who will knowingly pay others to abuse children is doing no harm??
Some very good points, but as I understand it (if you'll pardon my lack of references), the often conflicting commands of the Quran are a large part of the problem. For every peaceful/sensible command there is a bloodthirsty/unpleasant one that a hateful preacher can counter it with. The same can be said for the Bible of course, but it does make me wonder why God's prophets can't just be consistent with themselves.
As an aside, it may not really be the Quran that is at fault with regards to suicide bombings, but the sexual mores of arab culture (see point 4), which due to polygamy, leave a large pool of young men with no wife and no access to casual sex. Far easier to whip people up into an angry frenzy if they're not getting any.
Web singletons?
Aren't we all?
The label conservative, these days, means 'radical religious nationalist'. It has nothing to do with the traditional ethos of small government and individual freedoms
I thought that conservative (as in right wing) meant, strictly controlled personal freedoms and small government as in relaxed economic freedoms. e.g. left wing liberal: legalise pot & same sex marriage, state taxes corporations and distributes wealth to poor via social security; conservative right wing: drug control, abortion control, sexual 'normalness' only, minimal taxation of the rich, poor fend for themselves.
whoops, just modded 'redundant' accidentally. Posting to reverse. If anyone else has spare points, it should have been 'insightful'.
This was on CNN a few minutes ago and they confirmed that the Secret Service was already involved in the investigation.
'Secret' my arse.
Amateurs.
when somebody hacks a VP candidate, the FBI and Secret Service will react strongly
Did they really attack her, or have Scientologists seeking to damage Anonymous done it in order to smear them?
Speaking as a Brit, I find that amazing. Heartening to know that people in the US care for their country and want to defend it etc, and kudos to all for their bravery, but Iraq? Seriously? How can morale be so high when the body count grows and its clear to all by now that Saddam had no WMDs, had nothing to do with 9/11 and despite being a first class dick, didn't allow Al-Qaeda operatives any freedom to start building up a power base in Iraq (which is now swarming with them).
I don't intend to troll - I'm genuinely curious. Why is the Iraq war seen as successful?
Interesting how this very expensive technology is being used to do what can be achieved easily using a cheaply produced drug. The goal of the therapy is to re-experience the taumatic memory without being overcome by fear, so that you can re-evaluate and process the experience. Far more effective to temporarily disable the parts of your mind that feel fear and pain during therapy and its a proven technique. Unfortunately, the drug in question is currently illegal.
Ironic that the fear and anxiety of the population at large about 'drugs' means that fear and anxiety in individuals is far harder to treat than it needs to be.
Brilliant! Much obliged :)