(Shrug) Sure. If life itself can be said to have a purpose, it's making copies. That's what we do.
Anyone who tries to interfere with that process will spend their lives in struggle against fundamental, inexorable forces that they don't even see, much less comprehend.
That's fine, as log as you add Samsung into the list of bad corporate behavior.
Any organization with two or more people will be guilty of "bad corporate behavior" in someone's opinion. It's necessary to decide what you consider acceptable versus what you consider unacceptable.
I don't recall Samsung doing anything that I, personally, consider unacceptable. I can't say the same for Apple. Your own point is an empty one unless you elaborate.
One thing worth pointing out was that a great pilot was all Armstrong ever was. That, and a dinosaur.
He could have been supportive of people like Elon Musk who are trying to pick up the ball that the government has dropped.... but he wasn't. Since he had nothing nice to say about SpaceX, he could have STFU and said nothing at all. But he didn't do that either.
Armstrong has been a hero of mine since childhood, but at this late date, there are other heroes. I see no reason to spend even five more minutes thinking about Neil Armstrong and anything he did. When he used one of his rare public appearances to trash SpaceX's work without offering any better alternatives, he voluntarily consigned himself to the past
One good thing that comes from the old man's death? Maybe all of those clouds he's been yelling at can hear him now.
I don't think anyone will give you shit for collecting vinyl records, as long as you're not one of those nutters who claims they are better at reproducing sound than a properly mastered CD. "Vinyl collector" does not necessarily equal "Vaccine-shunning, astrology-believing, $5,000-power-cable-buying, moon-landing-denying audiophile."
It's not hypocritical for any thinking person to wish the whole Republican party into the proverbial cornfield. And it'll qualify as legitimate irony if a hurricane wipes them out.
You do realise this is already the case for critical medical equipment, right?
Yes, and I also realize that said critical medical equipment is currently available only to people in wealthy economies. Morever...
Listen: capitalism is an impediment to successful treatment in medicine.... I've also noted a certain correlation between capitalism and the development of that equipment in the first place. Countries without market economies for medical devices have almost never contributed to the development of such devices. That doesn't make you wonder?
Market economics should not determine whether a patient gets sub-standard treatment.
To the contrary, history shows that market economics determines whether such treatment exists at all. Do you have even the vaguest anecdotal examples to the contrary?
About the only counterexamples I can think of, personally, involve public health and sanitation. Those basic factors are obviously a lot more important than any gadgets or lack thereof, and we do have government to thank for their widespread availability, as well as their enforcement when necessary. But that's more a CDC thing than an FDA thing, isn't it?
Otherwise your comment simply can be read as "lalala can't hear you"
(Shrug) The suggestion was for your benefit, not mine. You're the one who's white-knighting the autistic love child of Clippy and Bob.
As someone else with a high karma and lengthy background on Slashdot, I would personally not want to go on record defending Metro, or whatever they're calling it this week. I'd at least check "Post Anonymously," I think.
What happens when a badly made, badly functioning unregulated application causes thousands of people to die because of misdiagnosis/mistreatment?
We deal with it when it happens, instead of trying to shrink-wrap the entire planet against any and all possibility of harm?
Have you considered that this is the same FDA that prevented the use of drugs that were later found to be harmful after being 'used safely for years elsewhere'?... Need a helpful example? How about, ohhh, THALIDOMIDE
You don't find, looking back at history, that most medical advances (if not practically all of them) were highly disruptive and threatening to existing power structures?
Are you sure it's a good idea to raise walls of ironclad regulation -- which under modern, corporate-controlled governments is just a continuation of competition by other means -- on every new example of medical hardware and software? Are you sure the net outcome of every artificial barrier to entry that governments will raise will be a positive one?
Slashdot Mirror
(Shrug) Sure. If life itself can be said to have a purpose, it's making copies. That's what we do.
Anyone who tries to interfere with that process will spend their lives in struggle against fundamental, inexorable forces that they don't even see, much less comprehend.
That's fine, as log as you add Samsung into the list of bad corporate behavior.
Any organization with two or more people will be guilty of "bad corporate behavior" in someone's opinion. It's necessary to decide what you consider acceptable versus what you consider unacceptable.
I don't recall Samsung doing anything that I, personally, consider unacceptable. I can't say the same for Apple. Your own point is an empty one unless you elaborate.
Dvorak? Even a blind nut finds a squirrel once a day.
The correct term isn't so much "Contractor" as "Sharecropper."
And a great pilot. You will be missed.
One thing worth pointing out was that a great pilot was all Armstrong ever was. That, and a dinosaur.
He could have been supportive of people like Elon Musk who are trying to pick up the ball that the government has dropped.... but he wasn't. Since he had nothing nice to say about SpaceX, he could have STFU and said nothing at all. But he didn't do that either.
Armstrong has been a hero of mine since childhood, but at this late date, there are other heroes. I see no reason to spend even five more minutes thinking about Neil Armstrong and anything he did. When he used one of his rare public appearances to trash SpaceX's work without offering any better alternatives, he voluntarily consigned himself to the past
One good thing that comes from the old man's death? Maybe all of those clouds he's been yelling at can hear him now.
Nobody would ask "what is the resistance of your fuse at 100mA?
Nobody except an engineer who is attempting to design something that will work properly.
OK, you get the guns, we get the science books. Let's see how that works out in the long run.
It's more a case where Apple climbed to the shoulder of the giant, then kicked the ladder away.
Starting to understand the whole MAD thing yet?
I don't think anyone will give you shit for collecting vinyl records, as long as you're not one of those nutters who claims they are better at reproducing sound than a properly mastered CD. "Vinyl collector" does not necessarily equal "Vaccine-shunning, astrology-believing, $5,000-power-cable-buying, moon-landing-denying audiophile."
It's not "too hard." NASA can write bug-free code, right?
But do you want to pay for it, as a user? I sure don't.
It's not hypocritical for any thinking person to wish the whole Republican party into the proverbial cornfield. And it'll qualify as legitimate irony if a hurricane wipes them out.
Don't worry, I hear it's not a legitimate hurricane. The body politic has ways of shutting that whole thing down.
Also, Chewlies Gum is much better for you than cigarettes.
You do realise this is already the case for critical medical equipment, right?
Yes, and I also realize that said critical medical equipment is currently available only to people in wealthy economies. Morever...
Listen: capitalism is an impediment to successful treatment in medicine .... I've also noted a certain correlation between capitalism and the development of that equipment in the first place. Countries without market economies for medical devices have almost never contributed to the development of such devices. That doesn't make you wonder?
Market economics should not determine whether a patient gets sub-standard treatment.
To the contrary, history shows that market economics determines whether such treatment exists at all. Do you have even the vaguest anecdotal examples to the contrary?
About the only counterexamples I can think of, personally, involve public health and sanitation. Those basic factors are obviously a lot more important than any gadgets or lack thereof, and we do have government to thank for their widespread availability, as well as their enforcement when necessary. But that's more a CDC thing than an FDA thing, isn't it?
Otherwise your comment simply can be read as "lalala can't hear you"
(Shrug) The suggestion was for your benefit, not mine. You're the one who's white-knighting the autistic love child of Clippy and Bob.
As someone else with a high karma and lengthy background on Slashdot, I would personally not want to go on record defending Metro, or whatever they're calling it this week. I'd at least check "Post Anonymously," I think.
So you've got courage going for you, at least.
The majority of computer users are not creators and never will be.
To the extent that's true -- and I'm not saying it isn't -- those users will end up on tablets.
Trying to turn the desktop PC into a giant tablet isn't going to work.
Seriously. Just stop.
Just.... just stop. No one's falling for it. Whatever they're paying you people, it shouldn't be enough to buy your dignity.
What happens when a badly made, badly functioning unregulated application causes thousands of people to die because of misdiagnosis/mistreatment?
We deal with it when it happens, instead of trying to shrink-wrap the entire planet against any and all possibility of harm?
Have you considered that this is the same FDA that prevented the use of drugs that were later found to be harmful after being 'used safely for years elsewhere'?... Need a helpful example? How about, ohhh, THALIDOMIDE
(Shrug) Life is dangerous. Wear a helmet.
You don't find, looking back at history, that most medical advances (if not practically all of them) were highly disruptive and threatening to existing power structures?
Are you sure it's a good idea to raise walls of ironclad regulation -- which under modern, corporate-controlled governments is just a continuation of competition by other means -- on every new example of medical hardware and software? Are you sure the net outcome of every artificial barrier to entry that governments will raise will be a positive one?
And what else would it prevent?
Seems to me that the parents is right. These need to be regulated.
They are. There are already existing laws against fraud.
Your problem seems to be that you disagree with the fines imposed. How could making yet another law be the right answer to that?
Yes, if your process for getting rid of scammers also adversely affects my ability to market something that isn't a scam.
Regulation is a blunt instrument, and it should not be the tool of first resort.
They can try to regulate apps, but they will run smack dab full tilt into the fan blades of First Amendment law if they try.
If money is free speech, then so is code.