Everything the Mac is, came from Apple engineers. Not Jobs.
If that were true, then some of those engineers must have had talents far beyond their training. Consequently, over the past 25 years, I would have expected to see those engineers branching out on their own and delivering other groundbreaking, influential products.
Yeah, and trillion-dollar bank bailouts are not capitalism. We're both right, but your argument is going to have about as much impact around here as mine.
Most of those Windows 8 fanboy posts here and elsewhere are obvious shills, though. Basically Ballmer is enlisting the Mechanical Turk in an effort to save his job.
Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that police work is extremely, inherently dangerous is an idiot.
That would be me, then.
I've never heard of anybody killing a roofer or a pilot merely because of their job.
That's not relevant. The point is, if I take any of those other jobs, I am more likely to be injured or killed on the job than I am if I become a cop.
Police work is always dangerous, and cannot ever be otherwise.
The statistics say otherwise.
Ever hear the phrase "toot your own horn"? I say, let them.
That's part of the problem, actually. Most of those other jobs (except for pilots, I suppose) don't involve using one's ego as a power tool. Tireless self-promotion on the part of police PR departments has led us to hold cops to a lower standard of behavior and performance rather than a higher one, as would be more appropriate.
Which explains why I'm not allowed to film loggers, pilots, miners, roofers, fishermen, pizza drivers, or any of several other professions that carry an even higher risk of on-the-job fatalities.
No, police officers are just better at whining about how dangerous their job is.
There exists a very good study that compared cross-border cities between Canada and the U.S.
And I'm sure that the researchers behind the "very good study," for which a citation is conspicuously absent in your post, were very careful to rule out all of the hundreds or thousands of other ethnic, cultural, and legislative factors that change when one crosses the border into Canada.
Gun advocates attacked it for reasons so obvious I will not bother stating them.
I see.
Gun advocates use every tactic in the book to sidestep the issues at hand. Gun control is a societal level control and can gradually bring down levels of gun violence.
A casual reading of history reveals that the most common factor behind homicides committed with firearms is a government -- even one with substantial popular support -- which has mistakenly been allowed to hold a monopoly on the use of force.
Certainly, I know when I'm faced with a dilemma regarding the extent to which my civil liberties should be compromised in the name of security, China is the first place I look for legislative models and case studies.
If it's domestic murders "in the heat of the moment" we're worried about, why is it that the gun control advocates always leap forward when someone commits a premeditated mass killing
Gun control mitigates the damage criminals do, and significantly raises the difficulty of getting enraged and killing someone with a particularly lethal weapon at hand.
Not really. You could kill more people with a gallon of gasoline and a couple of bike locks than I could with all the guns I could carry.
The worst mass murders have always been committed by means other than guns, even in the US. Most such killings are committed with guns but there is no reason to think the perpetrators wouldn't just move on to the next most convenient methodology if they couldn't obtain firearms.
The UK and germany for example have much higher violent crime rates than the US (and a lot of that is stabbings, and football hooliganism), but much lower murder rates because criminals in those places try and stab rather than shoot.
One huge problem with that old canard is the correlation between firearm murder rates and firearms regulations in various areas of the US. Areas with more guns in the hands of more law-abiding citizens have less crime, not more. If you're worried about being killed with a gun, the last place you want to live in the US is an area like DC or Chicago with strict gun control laws.
You can mutter about post-hoc fallacies and correlation not implying causation, but the reality is that gun-control proponents have very few statistics they can cite to advance their cause, and a lot of statistics they don't dare cite.
Ultimately it's very hard to separate cultural effects from the effects of firearms availability. This is true both within the US and between different nations as a whole. I won't go too far down that path because I don't have time to defend myself against accusations of bias and worse, but I will say that as a middle-aged male in an economically well off, culturally-homogenous area, any gun control measures that affect what weapons I can own are not going to make you any safer.
You might be right - but it's your choice whether to eat that sort of meat, or not. I'm prepared to pay more - sometimes a lot more - for free-range meat.
My guess is that this choice will go away very quickly once synthmeat becomes practical. It will become socially unacceptable to kill any actual animals for food at that point, even if the vat-grown stuff isn't as tasty at first.
Not saying that this will be a good or bad thing, just that it's inevitable.
(I should have been more clear: we'd already be losing about one plane a month.)
As soon as even one aircraft accident is written up to this particular cause, it will be time to start paying attention. Until then, these regulations are just superstition in action.
Same idea as having the TSA confiscate dangerous liquids which are then poured into a disposal bin right next to the line.
Sounds like either an inherently unsolvable problem, or a problem for the avionics people to tackle on their end.
Either way, I don't want to fly on any airplane that can be crashed by a an iPad. If someone thinks the correct way to fix that is by restricting the use of iPads and similar devices, they are sniffing glue.
Except for the fact [wikipedia.org] that Zuccotti Park is required to provide public access 24/7. What was that I said before? Oh yes. Moron. And you've proved me right. Again./p
But, of course, if a corporation seized control of Zucotti Park and used it for employee housing, you'd bellow something about the "tragedy of the commons" and complain about how long it took the police to charge the executives with loitering and/or trespassing.
Yeah, exactly. In fact I confidently predict that 2013 will be the year of the Linux desktop!
This was always a good wisecrack, until Microsoft decided to do everything in their power to make it happen. The market opportunities opened by the giant sucking vacuum that is Windows 8 are huge, and almost unprecedented.
People keep saying it would only have taken "30 seconds" for Linux to rebuke the maintainer more diplomatically. That may be true. Trouble is, it's 30 seconds for this guy, and 30 seconds providing polite corrective feedback for the next 500 broken commits that were submitted by people who, by their nature as human beings, will take advantage of every inch of slack they're given.
Afterwards it will take Linus 30 hours to deal with avoidable bugs that slipped through because (being imperfect himself) he couldn't catch everything.
Then it's 30 months, or even longer, to repair the product's reputation at a time when it should be gaining ground against its competitors.
In a mission-critical area like OS development, it seems better to create a culture where it hurts to be careless with user-facing code. It means less work and less pain for everyone at the end of the day. Anyone who disagrees can feel free to unsubscribe themselves from the kernel maintainers' list.
My guess is, nobody has done that... or at least nobody who will be missed.
Why was no one around at Microsoft to say that when Windows 8 Start Menu removal, and Metro was being developed?
Because the Microsoft board of directors is convinced that somehow, by a coincidence of cosmic proportions, the meth-addled salesdroid who was randomly assigned to share Bill Gates's dorm room at Harvard was -- and somehow still is -- the right person to lead the company his roommate started.
It would be funny if it weren't so silly, and if I didn't have to deal with the consequences.
That's why I'm starting to become more interested in Linux, an operating system that I've spent the last 10-15 years either ignoring or laughing at. It occurs to me that, like the MSFT board, I may have been backing the wrong horse.
He cares more about the product right this second than creating a culture that will create a great product 5 years from now, 10 years from now, or 25 years from now.
Yes, and he started doing that 20 years ago. From this, we can conclude that caring about the product "right now" is exactly what will ensure that you have a great product 20 years from now.
The reason this whole brouhaha is such a positive thing for Linux? It shows that Linus is starting to care as much about the user experience as he does about the integrity of the kernel itself. That part is new.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything the Mac is, came from Apple engineers. Not Jobs.
If that were true, then some of those engineers must have had talents far beyond their training. Consequently, over the past 25 years, I would have expected to see those engineers branching out on their own and delivering other groundbreaking, influential products.
Has that happened?
Yeah, and trillion-dollar bank bailouts are not capitalism. We're both right, but your argument is going to have about as much impact around here as mine.
Most of those Windows 8 fanboy posts here and elsewhere are obvious shills, though. Basically Ballmer is enlisting the Mechanical Turk in an effort to save his job.
Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that police work is extremely, inherently dangerous is an idiot.
That would be me, then.
I've never heard of anybody killing a roofer or a pilot merely because of their job.
That's not relevant. The point is, if I take any of those other jobs, I am more likely to be injured or killed on the job than I am if I become a cop.
Police work is always dangerous, and cannot ever be otherwise.
The statistics say otherwise.
Ever hear the phrase "toot your own horn"? I say, let them.
That's part of the problem, actually. Most of those other jobs (except for pilots, I suppose) don't involve using one's ego as a power tool. Tireless self-promotion on the part of police PR departments has led us to hold cops to a lower standard of behavior and performance rather than a higher one, as would be more appropriate.
Their job can be dangerous
Which explains why I'm not allowed to film loggers, pilots, miners, roofers, fishermen, pizza drivers, or any of several other professions that carry an even higher risk of on-the-job fatalities.
No, police officers are just better at whining about how dangerous their job is.
There exists a very good study that compared cross-border cities between Canada and the U.S.
And I'm sure that the researchers behind the "very good study," for which a citation is conspicuously absent in your post, were very careful to rule out all of the hundreds or thousands of other ethnic, cultural, and legislative factors that change when one crosses the border into Canada.
Gun advocates attacked it for reasons so obvious I will not bother stating them.
I see.
Gun advocates use every tactic in the book to sidestep the issues at hand. Gun control is a societal level control and can gradually bring down levels of gun violence.
A casual reading of history reveals that the most common factor behind homicides committed with firearms is a government -- even one with substantial popular support -- which has mistakenly been allowed to hold a monopoly on the use of force.
But hey, it can't happen here, right?
Certainly, I know when I'm faced with a dilemma regarding the extent to which my civil liberties should be compromised in the name of security, China is the first place I look for legislative models and case studies.
If it's domestic murders "in the heat of the moment" we're worried about, why is it that the gun control advocates always leap forward when someone commits a premeditated mass killing
"Never let a crisis go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
Gun control mitigates the damage criminals do, and significantly raises the difficulty of getting enraged and killing someone with a particularly lethal weapon at hand.
Not really. You could kill more people with a gallon of gasoline and a couple of bike locks than I could with all the guns I could carry.
The worst mass murders have always been committed by means other than guns, even in the US. Most such killings are committed with guns but there is no reason to think the perpetrators wouldn't just move on to the next most convenient methodology if they couldn't obtain firearms.
The UK and germany for example have much higher violent crime rates than the US (and a lot of that is stabbings, and football hooliganism), but much lower murder rates because criminals in those places try and stab rather than shoot.
One huge problem with that old canard is the correlation between firearm murder rates and firearms regulations in various areas of the US. Areas with more guns in the hands of more law-abiding citizens have less crime, not more. If you're worried about being killed with a gun, the last place you want to live in the US is an area like DC or Chicago with strict gun control laws.
You can mutter about post-hoc fallacies and correlation not implying causation, but the reality is that gun-control proponents have very few statistics they can cite to advance their cause, and a lot of statistics they don't dare cite.
Ultimately it's very hard to separate cultural effects from the effects of firearms availability. This is true both within the US and between different nations as a whole. I won't go too far down that path because I don't have time to defend myself against accusations of bias and worse, but I will say that as a middle-aged male in an economically well off, culturally-homogenous area, any gun control measures that affect what weapons I can own are not going to make you any safer.
You might be right - but it's your choice whether to eat that sort of meat, or not. I'm prepared to pay more - sometimes a lot more - for free-range meat.
My guess is that this choice will go away very quickly once synthmeat becomes practical. It will become socially unacceptable to kill any actual animals for food at that point, even if the vat-grown stuff isn't as tasty at first.
Not saying that this will be a good or bad thing, just that it's inevitable.
Don't look for icons, just start typing......usually within three keystrokes, the icon you want is in the left most column and can be clicked easily.
I liked this feature better when it was called "DOS."
I think the problem is that people are so resistant to change...
Dude, just stop. Whatever they're paying you to post this stuff, it isn't worth your dignity.
Everyone knows they are bad and destructive, they serve no useful purpose and should be eliminated.
Um, nuclear weapons have arguably saved humanity from a third world war. Patents have accomplished what, again?
It's hard to be precise about the odds of an event that has never happened before, and that hasn't been modeled.
(Shrug) You're the one who seems to be saying that it's ethical to "occupy" a public or semi-private space.
Is it, or isn't it? If it is, then the question becomes, who is entitled to do so?
(I should have been more clear: we'd already be losing about one plane a month.)
As soon as even one aircraft accident is written up to this particular cause, it will be time to start paying attention. Until then, these regulations are just superstition in action.
Same idea as having the TSA confiscate dangerous liquids which are then poured into a disposal bin right next to the line.
If it's a one in a million chance... ... then we'd lose about one plane a month from electronic interference.
Sounds like either an inherently unsolvable problem, or a problem for the avionics people to tackle on their end.
Either way, I don't want to fly on any airplane that can be crashed by a an iPad. If someone thinks the correct way to fix that is by restricting the use of iPads and similar devices, they are sniffing glue.
You should ask for all the money back that you paid them to host your video. Oh, wait...
Funny, that was Microsoft's reasoning, too. The antitrust people didn't buy it and neither do I.
Except for the fact [wikipedia.org] that Zuccotti Park is required to provide public access 24/7. What was that I said before? Oh yes. Moron. And you've proved me right. Again./p
But, of course, if a corporation seized control of Zucotti Park and used it for employee housing, you'd bellow something about the "tragedy of the commons" and complain about how long it took the police to charge the executives with loitering and/or trespassing.
Right?
Free speech can not cause aircraft instruments to malfunction and the plane to fly into the ground killing hundreds of people
Neither can Part 15-rated personal electronic devices.
If they could, do you seriously think you'd be allowed to bring them on an aircraft?
Yeah, exactly. In fact I confidently predict that 2013 will be the year of the Linux desktop!
This was always a good wisecrack, until Microsoft decided to do everything in their power to make it happen. The market opportunities opened by the giant sucking vacuum that is Windows 8 are huge, and almost unprecedented.
The farther back that Gates steps from Microsoft's day-to-day operations, the more shit like Windows 8 we get. Coincidence? I think not.
People keep saying it would only have taken "30 seconds" for Linux to rebuke the maintainer more diplomatically. That may be true. Trouble is, it's 30 seconds for this guy, and 30 seconds providing polite corrective feedback for the next 500 broken commits that were submitted by people who, by their nature as human beings, will take advantage of every inch of slack they're given.
Afterwards it will take Linus 30 hours to deal with avoidable bugs that slipped through because (being imperfect himself) he couldn't catch everything.
Then it's 30 months, or even longer, to repair the product's reputation at a time when it should be gaining ground against its competitors.
In a mission-critical area like OS development, it seems better to create a culture where it hurts to be careless with user-facing code. It means less work and less pain for everyone at the end of the day. Anyone who disagrees can feel free to unsubscribe themselves from the kernel maintainers' list.
My guess is, nobody has done that... or at least nobody who will be missed.
Why was no one around at Microsoft to say that when Windows 8 Start Menu removal, and Metro was being developed?
Because the Microsoft board of directors is convinced that somehow, by a coincidence of cosmic proportions, the meth-addled salesdroid who was randomly assigned to share Bill Gates's dorm room at Harvard was -- and somehow still is -- the right person to lead the company his roommate started.
It would be funny if it weren't so silly, and if I didn't have to deal with the consequences.
That's why I'm starting to become more interested in Linux, an operating system that I've spent the last 10-15 years either ignoring or laughing at. It occurs to me that, like the MSFT board, I may have been backing the wrong horse.
He cares more about the product right this second than creating a culture that will create a great product 5 years from now, 10 years from now, or 25 years from now.
Yes, and he started doing that 20 years ago. From this, we can conclude that caring about the product "right now" is exactly what will ensure that you have a great product 20 years from now.
The reason this whole brouhaha is such a positive thing for Linux? It shows that Linus is starting to care as much about the user experience as he does about the integrity of the kernel itself. That part is new.