Remember "A Current Affair?" Tabloid TV at its nadir. Apparently, this guy is trying to sink even lower. He didn't get the memo that this sort of thing was so "been there, done that" two decades ago.
It's not that I particularly care to defend Apple's closed (aka tight integration) policies regarding their products. I don't necessarily agree with their approach, nor do I disagree. I find some aspects troubling as much as I find others completely overblown.
But what these critics are consistently overlooking is one simple fact: competition. Look at the iPhone. It's so easy to look back with hindsight and say how it was a technological inevitability, but really, I want you to try really hard and remember what kind of phones we had on the market before the iPhone. Tortured user interfaces, nested menus, inelegant text input methods, tiny screens, and pathetic multimedia capabilities. Features were not designed from the ground up, but rather tacked on like afterthoughts. And look at where we are now. We have Google Android. We have touchscreen phones with big screens. We literally witnessed a revolution in mobile phone technology that the iPhone precipitated and yet these critics don't seem to recognize this fact. All they do is complain about lock-in, but had Apple not stuck its neck out and designed the iPhone, the mobile network operators and the handset makers would not have had a fire lit under their collective asses to deliver a better product to the consumer. Sure, we had "smartphones" before Apple. We had Windows Mobile, Blackberry, and Symbian. We had these things but they were STILL limited and expensive. Apple changed the mobile phone game and nobody can legitimately deny that.
The iPad is the same thing. It's not supposed to be everything everybody demanded at the outset. The iPhone wasn't--it wasn't even 3G originally. It didn't have the App Store at first. Apple's mode of operation, if it hasn't been made completely obvious by now, is to get the basics down first, then refine and expand later. That's what they did with the iPod (remember, it had a real hard drive inside, instead of flash memory?), the iPhone, and now the iPad. This is just the first step of many to come.
Only Apple has the balls these days to take a concept, refine it, and make it work. Remember all the other tablet vaporware hype in the past year? Everyone has somehow conveniently forgotten. There's NOTHING like the iPad out there right now. Not even CLOSE. And now that Apple has shown its hand, it's now up to the competitors to show what they can do. Apple took on all the risk of developing this product, now the competitors will see the market's reaction and make something that could be better and more open, just as what happened with the iPhone.
Are we getting it now?
It's always easy to criticize the innovators. It's easy to forget what life was like before the breakthroughs, because the most well-designed technologies become so natural and integrated into your life that they become second nature. The iPad is literally like something out of Star Trek, so much so that I thought it should've been called an iPADD. And now it is up to others to step up to the plate and provide their own devices, with more openness, with an even better interface, if they are really sincere about delivering choice.
You kinda missed the point. It's not about whether that statement is historically valid--it's about whether the culture views it as so. The Chinese like to consider themselves as having that continuity, both in terms of their ethnicity (which we know is not true) and in terms of their culture (which has some merit). By contrast, for example, Americans generally don't view themselves as cultural descendants of the British.
This kind of self-image, of what it *means* to be "Chinese," is a very strongly held concept, and it is part of the reason why China hasn't retaken Taiwan, and why the Nationalists are ideologically opposed to the concept of "Taiwanese independence." It may not be rooted in anthropological reality, but it is held nonetheless and as such it influences political decision making. That is the point.
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. Consumers throw money at musicians and athletes in no small part BECAUSE the US is a capitalist economy. They make all that money because that's the sum total of the perceived value of the goods/services they offer. It is the price that the market has set. To say anti-capitalism is to blame for US economic woes is entirely inconsistent with your previous statement.
Indeed, capitalist theory predicts the outflow of money and labor from the US to China precisely because goods and services are cheaper to produce in the latter. It is precisely because of a laissez-faire market and the lack of regulation that caused jobs to be outsourced and massive amounts of debt to be accumulated, because short-term profits were valued more than long-term returns. Unfettered capitalism concentrates wealth and increases the income gap as that wealth facilitates the enactment of deregulatory fiscal policies that protect the status quo. That is precisely what we observed in this latest economic meltdown.
Don't get me wrong--capitalism is an important economic theory and one that has broad applicability, but it is by no means a perfect model, no more than a socialist theory is.
I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, except for the very last part. What do you mean "if they decide to play the imperialism game?" They have been doing precisely that for decades. How else do you explain the unrest in Tibet, the genocide in Cambodia under Pol Pot, the continued despotism of the military junta in Burma, the continued resistance to substantive UN Security Council action on Iran's nuclear program, and their implicit support of North Korea? Make no mistake, imperialism is alive and well in the world these days. The kings and queens have been replaced by dollar signs and oil in this age-old game of chess. In fact, one might argue that imperialism has always been about money and natural resources.
China is successful because as the single oldest continuous civilization on this planet, the Chinese people thought they were superior to everyone else and isolated themselves from the world, only to find themselves struck down by the hand of Western imperialism. They learned their history lesson very well, and have never forgotten it, whereas Americans, with their consumer-driven, mass media culture, can barely remember what happened last decade. The Chinese decided long ago that they wouldn't be caught with their pants down again. And they will succeed on the very backs of American borrowers and American corporations. They know how to play the political game better than anybody else, because unlike the stupid US government, they don't fight wars with guns and bombs. They fight their wars with money, and let the rest of the world deal with the consequences.
I left Facebook a long time ago after maintaining a very minimal presence for the sake of my friends. People continue to ask me if I'm on it and I just simply say no. I'll give them my email, or other contact information, but all the social media in the world is never going to replace the subtle beauty of real-life contact. Humans have been socializing long before Facebook, long before the internet. We would do well to learn the lessons of our history and understand how to use technology to bring us closer, rather than using it as a substitute for genuine interaction because we're all supposedly too busy to make time to do things the right way.
So what makes Microsoft think that they can make a decent tablet?
Seriously, think about it for a minute. Forget about all the hype, forget about Apple's tablet (which hasn't even been announced). Forget about prototypes and mockups. Look at what we already know for a fact. Look at the state of Windows Mobile. How much attention has Microsoft given it? Now consider what they did to Danger, and the whole Pink debacle spearheaded by Roz Ho. And look at what they're doing with Bing, trying to compete with Google. Finally, what happened with the Tablet PC? Remember those? I ask you in all honesty: do you think that Microsoft is actually capable of launching a touchscreen tablet device that is going to provide an elegant, rich, and relatively bug-free user experience? Do you think that they will put their weight behind a putative MS tablet?
The problem here is that I have serious reservations about Microsoft's competence as well as their sincerity in developing and supporting such a device. I look at their track record with past initiatives and all I see are half-baked attempts. This rumor, if true, totally reeks of desperation, and I would not go near this one with a ten-foot pole. Such a device would not only have to be freaking amazing, it would have to be available by next month AND it would need to be bug-free, and cheap. In other words, it would have to be perfect now. Not in five years. Otherwise, it'll be a joke.
Yes, you are absolutely correct--I merely used the "selling data" as a shorthand (an inaccurate one at that) for what you described.
However, I still feel unsettled that any single corporate entity can observe and collect as much data about me as Google does. Whether or not they let anyone else have it is not really the point...I actively try to minimize their ability to correlate that data, by using multiple accounts, for example.
I'm not paranoid--if I were, I would avoid using any Google services at all. But I still use Maps, search, mail, etc. That's because the benefit to me to use these (as opposed to a competitor's service) exceeds the risk of invasion of privacy. That's how much better Google implemented these. But Android (and Chrome) is not at that stage for me to feel comfortable using it, and it may never get to that point. The non-Google alternatives (e.g. iPhone, Firefox) are quite satisfactory to me.
I think if you did that, you'd probably discover she's about shoes. Prada or Jimmy Choo. And handbags. Then again, I don't think you really need Google to tell you that.
Ah, but this is what Google wants everyone to believe. They want you to think that they're just messing around and dabbling in every tech-related market. But the truth is far more subtle and interesting.
Google's real product, its core focus, has always been and remains its analytics. Everything they have developed or acquired--GMail, Maps, YouTube, Android, and of course, Google search--has been about one thing, and one thing only: gathering data and analyzing it in order to better match the consumer with the advertiser. You want to know/buy something. Someone else wants to tell/sell it to you. And Google's entire business model is about profiting off the need to make this connection efficient.
When viewed in this context, it becomes crystal clear why they have their hands in all these seemingly disparate technologies. They have a huge advantage, in that by cross-indexing the data they have collected on you, they can have a very complete picture of your preferences. It doesn't matter that YouTube doesn't turn a profit on its own. It doesn't matter that GMail and Android are free. In a sense, these things are not really products. They're more like...well, bait. They are a means to understand you better, and in turn, sell that understanding to people who want to sell you their products. Therefore, you are not Google's customer. The advertisers, the ones who pay Google for their analytics, are their real customers.
Given Microsoft's recent unveiling of Bing (and their "cashback" program), it appears that MS management still doesn't understand Google's strategy. They are trying to compete in this one area, thinking that if they could attract people to use their search engine, they would be competitive. While that tactic might have worked a decade ago, it's much too late now. They are throwing money at the problem because they don't understand that Google is successful because they offer services that are free, easy to use, and effective, then take the data they collect and sell that knowledge to advertisers. They have misunderstood in the same way that people misunderstand why Google developed all these different technologies and offered them for free.
It's also one more reason why I won't use Android, despite how good it is. I already use too many Google services. I don't need them to know even more about me than they already do.
Well, if you want someone to blame, blame US corporations for sending jobs to China and the US government for allowing trillions of dollars of trade deficit with China, that enables their government to be the economic powerhouse it is. The biggest abusers of human rights in the world is not China--it is the multinational corporations, many of them headquartered in the US, that exploits people in developing countries for cheap labor and props up dictatorial regimes so long as they make it easy and profitable for them to do business. And if you want to find out how these corporations got so powerful, all you need to do is go look to the Americans whose insatiable desire for cheap mass-produced goods has fed their gluttony with their hard-earned dollars.
You want this high-speed rail technology in the US? Stop running up all that credit card debt. Stop turning over your livelihood and savings to buy your own little slice of the American McDream(tm).
Or they'd cram you in like sardines, turn on the sleep regulators, and after your jump from hyperspace, you arrive on a hotel orbiting a water-covered planet.
Perhaps you're right. I don't really know because I've lived in the US most of my life and I don't know what it's really like to live in China. But based on what I've been told by those who have lived there both by citizens and expatriates, the Western media has painted a rather distorted picture of daily life in China.
But the reason why I am specifically responding to your post is that you are basically saying that intentions count, and I disagree with this, especially as it pertains to the individual. I don't care that the US likes to hold up a piece of paper and talk about lofty ideals. I care about what actually happens, and the eight years under Bush's reign has proven just how little intentions are really worth. Everything from the response to Katrina, the creation of TSA, warrantless wiretapping, no-bid contracts, the healthcare debacle...it is all utterly rotten to the core. Time and time again, the law is upheld for the rich. If you are of modest means, there is no justice for you because you can't afford it.
The goal of the US system is not to uphold freedom. It has increasingly become a game played by the rich and powerful to see who can consolidate more power and influence under the pretense of freedom. Is that worse or better than the specter of a communist state? I honestly don't know. But what I do know is that I do not want either.
You misunderstand me. You seem to think that I am favoring China over the US. That's like me saying I'd rather choose execution by lethal injection versus firing squad.
Both systems suck massive donkey balls because there is no real justice. In China, you can't criticize the government. Lax food safety regulations caused the Sanlu Dairy scandal, many babies were seriously injured, some died, and what did their parents get in compensation? A pittance. Worse, they couldn't appeal for better compensation.
On the other hand, their executions are swift, as in the Sanlu case. American corporations are too powerful to allow the legal system to execute the corrupt rich. Madoff and Skilling got off lightly. And in the US, taxpayers spend huge amounts of money housing inmates on death row for decades. I am not necessarily an advocate of the death penalty, but if you're going to do it, don't waste taxpayer money doing it.
Again, focusing on how the people are bent over and taking it up the ass (lube or dry?) is asking the wrong question. My point is that we shouldn't have to be subjected to injustice perpetrated by the state to begin with. And there is plenty of injustice to go around.
is that with China, there's no pandering talk about "freedom" and "civil liberties." Chinese citizens know exactly what's up, whereas your average American still thinks they have freedom.
You think this is a provocative claim? It's not. The way the state deals with internet regulation is a perfect illustration. In China, you are forcibly blocked, end of story. Simple, efficient. In the US, law enforcement doesn't stop you outright, but instead they track you only to prosecute your ass later. Massive amounts of data are collected on you, whether it is by companies or by the state. The only real "freedom" your average American citizen has is the freedom to incriminate themselves, which, under the capitalist system, means complete financial destruction.
Honestly, you are screwed in either country. It's just that the Chinese government is more open about how they're screwing you.
Agreed. Economics is the key player, and there will always be demand for choice.
However, there is another factor that is gathering increasing awareness in the public consciousness--food safety. If lab-grown artificial meat is viewed as free from pathogens or bioaccumulated toxins, and real animal meat continues to trend toward being contaminated and unsafe, then we could really see a dramatic shift in demand, which would create a positive feedback loop that would stimulate more investment into artificial meat. Natural meat could then become a luxury or Veblen good, rarely seen and even more rarely consumed; or paradoxically, it could be viewed as inferior and unworthy of consumption. Or both--after all, "beef" today ranges from the finest Wagyu steak to the scraps you'd scarcely want to feed to your dog.
Personally, if modern science can make artificial meat that is nutritionally and aesthetically equivalent to natural meat, but without the worry of contamination, I'll be the first in line to order, please! Imagine the consequences. You could eat raw "meat" of any kind without worries. It would open up an entire new realm of culinary development.
I wish I had mod points because you're absolutely right. What's telling, though, is that each group's respective positions can be seen as a direct and logical consequence of their core principles.
The statement by the Vegetarian Society only underscores their true position, which is that they believe humans aren't supposed to eat anything but plants. Their real agenda is against anything that might even have the appearance of meat, because accepting the legitimacy of artificial meat takes away one of their core beliefs--that a diet devoid of animal protein is nutritionally complete.
PETA, on the other hand, is about anthropomorphizing animals--it is about granting animals the same rights to existence and freedom from suffering as humans (never mind the fact that animals inflict violence upon each other, most animals aren't even biologically capable of sentience, and we humans probably endure far more suffering as a species than any other animal). Any development that permits animals to not feel suffering at the hands of humans is a welcome one.
In short, for one group, it's about us humans and our conceited notions of what constitutes food. For the other group, it has nothing to do with us; it's all about the animals. In both cases, it's taking a seed of truth and growing it into a grotesque tree watered by warped thinking.
A: "Yes, the Brits have tried and it's in one of the vending machines, but it's not going down so well with the Swiss."
Q: It must be a fairly geeky place to work. What does it smell like?
A: "It smells probably much like you'd expect -- a bit 'games-heavy'. The experimentalists and the theoretical physicists have a different odour. The excessive amount of soft cheese in the area doesn't add to the spring-time freshness of the site."
What I think is most telling about that quote is how an AV company has blurred the distinction between a "virus" and what basically amounts to a default password security hole. Sorry, but how does that make me want to trust you to run software on my device if you don't care to demonstrate you know the difference between these two types of attack?
The only reason why the jailbroken phones were vulnerable was because the default SSH password was not changed. No amount of AV is going to protect against a user's stupidity. This statement by F-Secure is about the money-making opportunity they're dying to exploit, and they're clearly riding the wave of negative publicity surrounding the closed platform nature of the iPhone.
...that people are willing to pay a minimum of $60/month for iPhone service and $100 on the hardware itself (and on average quite a lot more than this!), yet are pirating games and apps worth, what, $2?
*facepalm*
I don't get it. Pirating movies and music, at least, I get. An album or movie is usually at least $10. And the replay value is not as high as a game--you saw it or listened to it, okay, that's everything to the content. A game, IMO, has more lasting entertainment value (provided it's a good one) than even the best movies. And I'm not even a "gamer." (Would you believe I've never owned a game console of any sort?)
$1440 minimum for the 2-year iPhone contract, plus the hardware cost...apps are puny in comparison. Heck, I spend more on gasoline in one month than I've spent on all my iPhone apps ever since iPhone apps existed. Sure, I suppose there are people out there who want tons of apps, but seriously, I went through the store. There really wasn't all that much to be had at any price, including free. The truth is, the vast, vast majority of apps are crap.
What, you think the purpose of a credit file is to serve the borrower?
Credit scores and credit reports are for lenders. Why would they fine themselves for incorrectly reporting your credit history? The system is broken not because there is inadequate oversight or accountability regarding lending and reporting practices (though it is obviously grossly inadequate). The system is broken because it is designed from its very foundations to ensure that no matter what, lenders always come out on top. This is why fraud is not more aggressively pursued, and why incorrect reporting is shrugged off as a necessary part of doing business. The free-market mentality is that the only mechanism required to ensure correct reporting is the loss of revenue due to competitors valuation of lending risk being more accurate than one's own. And of course, the consumer is the one who always gets shafted under this system.
Credit reports are a double-edged sword. On the one hand, they are a necessary aspect of determining credit risk. On the other hand, they are used these days to evaluate far more than one's creditworthiness--and they do so using very personal and specific data about you, information that you would think ought to be your right to know whether they are being used for or against you. The system is corrupt because it is being increasingly applied to aspects of one's life far beyond what was originally intended, yet the borrower is really the only party who truly cares about the accuracy of the data it contains.
Not as it applied to the iPhone. Remember, people were lining up to pay $500 for the iPhone when it first came out--and yet it was exclusively on AT&T. Only the 3G models were subsidized.
You can't simply ignore the fact that there are a large number of iPhone users who would not choose AT&T as their carrier, but are willing to sacrifice the quality of mobile service for the convenience and features of the device. For a significant proportion of iPhone (and hence, AT&T) users, the issue therefore is not directly about cost. Many of them are capable of paying $100/month for service. $200 off the price of the phone is nothing in comparison to the cost of a 2-year contract. If it means better coverage and more flexibility, they would have no problem paying the unsubsidized cost of the phone in exchange for not being forced to go with AT&T.
As for non-iPhone devices, yes, your statement has some merit, but this is only true to the extent that handset manufacturers have traditionally provided similar devices to multiple carriers. Because of the runaway success of the exclusive iPhone+AT&T arrangement, competing handset makers are now seeking to copy that model, which ultimately does not bode well for the consumer. It is my longstanding hope that Apple will soon terminate their exclusive arrangement with AT&T, because it is not only good for them (as it increases their reach and provides them more leverage with the various carriers), but it is also good for the consumer.
Indeed...I agree with that sentiment. I seem to recall a great deal of controversy over "vigilante justice" in the case of a young Korean woman who was photographed for failing to clean up after her dog on the subway, and subsequently humiliated.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember "A Current Affair?" Tabloid TV at its nadir. Apparently, this guy is trying to sink even lower. He didn't get the memo that this sort of thing was so "been there, done that" two decades ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Current_Affair_(U.S._TV_series)
It's not that I particularly care to defend Apple's closed (aka tight integration) policies regarding their products. I don't necessarily agree with their approach, nor do I disagree. I find some aspects troubling as much as I find others completely overblown.
But what these critics are consistently overlooking is one simple fact: competition. Look at the iPhone. It's so easy to look back with hindsight and say how it was a technological inevitability, but really, I want you to try really hard and remember what kind of phones we had on the market before the iPhone. Tortured user interfaces, nested menus, inelegant text input methods, tiny screens, and pathetic multimedia capabilities. Features were not designed from the ground up, but rather tacked on like afterthoughts. And look at where we are now. We have Google Android. We have touchscreen phones with big screens. We literally witnessed a revolution in mobile phone technology that the iPhone precipitated and yet these critics don't seem to recognize this fact. All they do is complain about lock-in, but had Apple not stuck its neck out and designed the iPhone, the mobile network operators and the handset makers would not have had a fire lit under their collective asses to deliver a better product to the consumer. Sure, we had "smartphones" before Apple. We had Windows Mobile, Blackberry, and Symbian. We had these things but they were STILL limited and expensive. Apple changed the mobile phone game and nobody can legitimately deny that.
The iPad is the same thing. It's not supposed to be everything everybody demanded at the outset. The iPhone wasn't--it wasn't even 3G originally. It didn't have the App Store at first. Apple's mode of operation, if it hasn't been made completely obvious by now, is to get the basics down first, then refine and expand later. That's what they did with the iPod (remember, it had a real hard drive inside, instead of flash memory?), the iPhone, and now the iPad. This is just the first step of many to come.
Only Apple has the balls these days to take a concept, refine it, and make it work. Remember all the other tablet vaporware hype in the past year? Everyone has somehow conveniently forgotten. There's NOTHING like the iPad out there right now. Not even CLOSE. And now that Apple has shown its hand, it's now up to the competitors to show what they can do. Apple took on all the risk of developing this product, now the competitors will see the market's reaction and make something that could be better and more open, just as what happened with the iPhone.
Are we getting it now?
It's always easy to criticize the innovators. It's easy to forget what life was like before the breakthroughs, because the most well-designed technologies become so natural and integrated into your life that they become second nature. The iPad is literally like something out of Star Trek, so much so that I thought it should've been called an iPADD. And now it is up to others to step up to the plate and provide their own devices, with more openness, with an even better interface, if they are really sincere about delivering choice.
You kinda missed the point. It's not about whether that statement is historically valid--it's about whether the culture views it as so. The Chinese like to consider themselves as having that continuity, both in terms of their ethnicity (which we know is not true) and in terms of their culture (which has some merit). By contrast, for example, Americans generally don't view themselves as cultural descendants of the British.
This kind of self-image, of what it *means* to be "Chinese," is a very strongly held concept, and it is part of the reason why China hasn't retaken Taiwan, and why the Nationalists are ideologically opposed to the concept of "Taiwanese independence." It may not be rooted in anthropological reality, but it is held nonetheless and as such it influences political decision making. That is the point.
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. Consumers throw money at musicians and athletes in no small part BECAUSE the US is a capitalist economy. They make all that money because that's the sum total of the perceived value of the goods/services they offer. It is the price that the market has set. To say anti-capitalism is to blame for US economic woes is entirely inconsistent with your previous statement.
Indeed, capitalist theory predicts the outflow of money and labor from the US to China precisely because goods and services are cheaper to produce in the latter. It is precisely because of a laissez-faire market and the lack of regulation that caused jobs to be outsourced and massive amounts of debt to be accumulated, because short-term profits were valued more than long-term returns. Unfettered capitalism concentrates wealth and increases the income gap as that wealth facilitates the enactment of deregulatory fiscal policies that protect the status quo. That is precisely what we observed in this latest economic meltdown.
Don't get me wrong--capitalism is an important economic theory and one that has broad applicability, but it is by no means a perfect model, no more than a socialist theory is.
Why is this modded flamebait? It's 100% true.
I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, except for the very last part. What do you mean "if they decide to play the imperialism game?" They have been doing precisely that for decades. How else do you explain the unrest in Tibet, the genocide in Cambodia under Pol Pot, the continued despotism of the military junta in Burma, the continued resistance to substantive UN Security Council action on Iran's nuclear program, and their implicit support of North Korea? Make no mistake, imperialism is alive and well in the world these days. The kings and queens have been replaced by dollar signs and oil in this age-old game of chess. In fact, one might argue that imperialism has always been about money and natural resources.
China is successful because as the single oldest continuous civilization on this planet, the Chinese people thought they were superior to everyone else and isolated themselves from the world, only to find themselves struck down by the hand of Western imperialism. They learned their history lesson very well, and have never forgotten it, whereas Americans, with their consumer-driven, mass media culture, can barely remember what happened last decade. The Chinese decided long ago that they wouldn't be caught with their pants down again. And they will succeed on the very backs of American borrowers and American corporations. They know how to play the political game better than anybody else, because unlike the stupid US government, they don't fight wars with guns and bombs. They fight their wars with money, and let the rest of the world deal with the consequences.
What better time to start than now?
I left Facebook a long time ago after maintaining a very minimal presence for the sake of my friends. People continue to ask me if I'm on it and I just simply say no. I'll give them my email, or other contact information, but all the social media in the world is never going to replace the subtle beauty of real-life contact. Humans have been socializing long before Facebook, long before the internet. We would do well to learn the lessons of our history and understand how to use technology to bring us closer, rather than using it as a substitute for genuine interaction because we're all supposedly too busy to make time to do things the right way.
So what makes Microsoft think that they can make a decent tablet?
Seriously, think about it for a minute. Forget about all the hype, forget about Apple's tablet (which hasn't even been announced). Forget about prototypes and mockups. Look at what we already know for a fact. Look at the state of Windows Mobile. How much attention has Microsoft given it? Now consider what they did to Danger, and the whole Pink debacle spearheaded by Roz Ho. And look at what they're doing with Bing, trying to compete with Google. Finally, what happened with the Tablet PC? Remember those? I ask you in all honesty: do you think that Microsoft is actually capable of launching a touchscreen tablet device that is going to provide an elegant, rich, and relatively bug-free user experience? Do you think that they will put their weight behind a putative MS tablet?
The problem here is that I have serious reservations about Microsoft's competence as well as their sincerity in developing and supporting such a device. I look at their track record with past initiatives and all I see are half-baked attempts. This rumor, if true, totally reeks of desperation, and I would not go near this one with a ten-foot pole. Such a device would not only have to be freaking amazing, it would have to be available by next month AND it would need to be bug-free, and cheap. In other words, it would have to be perfect now. Not in five years. Otherwise, it'll be a joke.
Yes, you are absolutely correct--I merely used the "selling data" as a shorthand (an inaccurate one at that) for what you described.
However, I still feel unsettled that any single corporate entity can observe and collect as much data about me as Google does. Whether or not they let anyone else have it is not really the point...I actively try to minimize their ability to correlate that data, by using multiple accounts, for example.
I'm not paranoid--if I were, I would avoid using any Google services at all. But I still use Maps, search, mail, etc. That's because the benefit to me to use these (as opposed to a competitor's service) exceeds the risk of invasion of privacy. That's how much better Google implemented these. But Android (and Chrome) is not at that stage for me to feel comfortable using it, and it may never get to that point. The non-Google alternatives (e.g. iPhone, Firefox) are quite satisfactory to me.
LOL
I think if you did that, you'd probably discover she's about shoes. Prada or Jimmy Choo. And handbags. Then again, I don't think you really need Google to tell you that.
Ah, but this is what Google wants everyone to believe. They want you to think that they're just messing around and dabbling in every tech-related market. But the truth is far more subtle and interesting.
Google's real product, its core focus, has always been and remains its analytics. Everything they have developed or acquired--GMail, Maps, YouTube, Android, and of course, Google search--has been about one thing, and one thing only: gathering data and analyzing it in order to better match the consumer with the advertiser. You want to know/buy something. Someone else wants to tell/sell it to you. And Google's entire business model is about profiting off the need to make this connection efficient.
When viewed in this context, it becomes crystal clear why they have their hands in all these seemingly disparate technologies. They have a huge advantage, in that by cross-indexing the data they have collected on you, they can have a very complete picture of your preferences. It doesn't matter that YouTube doesn't turn a profit on its own. It doesn't matter that GMail and Android are free. In a sense, these things are not really products. They're more like...well, bait. They are a means to understand you better, and in turn, sell that understanding to people who want to sell you their products. Therefore, you are not Google's customer. The advertisers, the ones who pay Google for their analytics, are their real customers.
Given Microsoft's recent unveiling of Bing (and their "cashback" program), it appears that MS management still doesn't understand Google's strategy. They are trying to compete in this one area, thinking that if they could attract people to use their search engine, they would be competitive. While that tactic might have worked a decade ago, it's much too late now. They are throwing money at the problem because they don't understand that Google is successful because they offer services that are free, easy to use, and effective, then take the data they collect and sell that knowledge to advertisers. They have misunderstood in the same way that people misunderstand why Google developed all these different technologies and offered them for free.
It's also one more reason why I won't use Android, despite how good it is. I already use too many Google services. I don't need them to know even more about me than they already do.
Well, if you want someone to blame, blame US corporations for sending jobs to China and the US government for allowing trillions of dollars of trade deficit with China, that enables their government to be the economic powerhouse it is. The biggest abusers of human rights in the world is not China--it is the multinational corporations, many of them headquartered in the US, that exploits people in developing countries for cheap labor and props up dictatorial regimes so long as they make it easy and profitable for them to do business. And if you want to find out how these corporations got so powerful, all you need to do is go look to the Americans whose insatiable desire for cheap mass-produced goods has fed their gluttony with their hard-earned dollars.
You want this high-speed rail technology in the US? Stop running up all that credit card debt. Stop turning over your livelihood and savings to buy your own little slice of the American McDream(tm).
Whatever you do, don't eat persimmons. You just might turn the hypothetical into the palpably real. Case in point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF1pIMgE8FA
Or they'd cram you in like sardines, turn on the sleep regulators, and after your jump from hyperspace, you arrive on a hotel orbiting a water-covered planet.
And don't forget your multipass!
Perhaps you're right. I don't really know because I've lived in the US most of my life and I don't know what it's really like to live in China. But based on what I've been told by those who have lived there both by citizens and expatriates, the Western media has painted a rather distorted picture of daily life in China.
But the reason why I am specifically responding to your post is that you are basically saying that intentions count, and I disagree with this, especially as it pertains to the individual. I don't care that the US likes to hold up a piece of paper and talk about lofty ideals. I care about what actually happens, and the eight years under Bush's reign has proven just how little intentions are really worth. Everything from the response to Katrina, the creation of TSA, warrantless wiretapping, no-bid contracts, the healthcare debacle...it is all utterly rotten to the core. Time and time again, the law is upheld for the rich. If you are of modest means, there is no justice for you because you can't afford it.
The goal of the US system is not to uphold freedom. It has increasingly become a game played by the rich and powerful to see who can consolidate more power and influence under the pretense of freedom. Is that worse or better than the specter of a communist state? I honestly don't know. But what I do know is that I do not want either.
You misunderstand me. You seem to think that I am favoring China over the US. That's like me saying I'd rather choose execution by lethal injection versus firing squad.
Both systems suck massive donkey balls because there is no real justice. In China, you can't criticize the government. Lax food safety regulations caused the Sanlu Dairy scandal, many babies were seriously injured, some died, and what did their parents get in compensation? A pittance. Worse, they couldn't appeal for better compensation.
On the other hand, their executions are swift, as in the Sanlu case. American corporations are too powerful to allow the legal system to execute the corrupt rich. Madoff and Skilling got off lightly. And in the US, taxpayers spend huge amounts of money housing inmates on death row for decades. I am not necessarily an advocate of the death penalty, but if you're going to do it, don't waste taxpayer money doing it.
Again, focusing on how the people are bent over and taking it up the ass (lube or dry?) is asking the wrong question. My point is that we shouldn't have to be subjected to injustice perpetrated by the state to begin with. And there is plenty of injustice to go around.
is that with China, there's no pandering talk about "freedom" and "civil liberties." Chinese citizens know exactly what's up, whereas your average American still thinks they have freedom.
You think this is a provocative claim? It's not. The way the state deals with internet regulation is a perfect illustration. In China, you are forcibly blocked, end of story. Simple, efficient. In the US, law enforcement doesn't stop you outright, but instead they track you only to prosecute your ass later. Massive amounts of data are collected on you, whether it is by companies or by the state. The only real "freedom" your average American citizen has is the freedom to incriminate themselves, which, under the capitalist system, means complete financial destruction.
Honestly, you are screwed in either country. It's just that the Chinese government is more open about how they're screwing you.
Agreed. Economics is the key player, and there will always be demand for choice.
However, there is another factor that is gathering increasing awareness in the public consciousness--food safety. If lab-grown artificial meat is viewed as free from pathogens or bioaccumulated toxins, and real animal meat continues to trend toward being contaminated and unsafe, then we could really see a dramatic shift in demand, which would create a positive feedback loop that would stimulate more investment into artificial meat. Natural meat could then become a luxury or Veblen good, rarely seen and even more rarely consumed; or paradoxically, it could be viewed as inferior and unworthy of consumption. Or both--after all, "beef" today ranges from the finest Wagyu steak to the scraps you'd scarcely want to feed to your dog.
Personally, if modern science can make artificial meat that is nutritionally and aesthetically equivalent to natural meat, but without the worry of contamination, I'll be the first in line to order, please! Imagine the consequences. You could eat raw "meat" of any kind without worries. It would open up an entire new realm of culinary development.
I wish I had mod points because you're absolutely right. What's telling, though, is that each group's respective positions can be seen as a direct and logical consequence of their core principles.
The statement by the Vegetarian Society only underscores their true position, which is that they believe humans aren't supposed to eat anything but plants. Their real agenda is against anything that might even have the appearance of meat, because accepting the legitimacy of artificial meat takes away one of their core beliefs--that a diet devoid of animal protein is nutritionally complete.
PETA, on the other hand, is about anthropomorphizing animals--it is about granting animals the same rights to existence and freedom from suffering as humans (never mind the fact that animals inflict violence upon each other, most animals aren't even biologically capable of sentience, and we humans probably endure far more suffering as a species than any other animal). Any development that permits animals to not feel suffering at the hands of humans is a welcome one.
In short, for one group, it's about us humans and our conceited notions of what constitutes food. For the other group, it has nothing to do with us; it's all about the animals. In both cases, it's taking a seed of truth and growing it into a grotesque tree watered by warped thinking.
LMAO. Well worth the read.
What I think is most telling about that quote is how an AV company has blurred the distinction between a "virus" and what basically amounts to a default password security hole. Sorry, but how does that make me want to trust you to run software on my device if you don't care to demonstrate you know the difference between these two types of attack?
The only reason why the jailbroken phones were vulnerable was because the default SSH password was not changed. No amount of AV is going to protect against a user's stupidity. This statement by F-Secure is about the money-making opportunity they're dying to exploit, and they're clearly riding the wave of negative publicity surrounding the closed platform nature of the iPhone.
...that people are willing to pay a minimum of $60/month for iPhone service and $100 on the hardware itself (and on average quite a lot more than this!), yet are pirating games and apps worth, what, $2?
*facepalm*
I don't get it. Pirating movies and music, at least, I get. An album or movie is usually at least $10. And the replay value is not as high as a game--you saw it or listened to it, okay, that's everything to the content. A game, IMO, has more lasting entertainment value (provided it's a good one) than even the best movies. And I'm not even a "gamer." (Would you believe I've never owned a game console of any sort?)
$1440 minimum for the 2-year iPhone contract, plus the hardware cost...apps are puny in comparison. Heck, I spend more on gasoline in one month than I've spent on all my iPhone apps ever since iPhone apps existed. Sure, I suppose there are people out there who want tons of apps, but seriously, I went through the store. There really wasn't all that much to be had at any price, including free. The truth is, the vast, vast majority of apps are crap.
What, you think the purpose of a credit file is to serve the borrower?
Credit scores and credit reports are for lenders. Why would they fine themselves for incorrectly reporting your credit history? The system is broken not because there is inadequate oversight or accountability regarding lending and reporting practices (though it is obviously grossly inadequate). The system is broken because it is designed from its very foundations to ensure that no matter what, lenders always come out on top. This is why fraud is not more aggressively pursued, and why incorrect reporting is shrugged off as a necessary part of doing business. The free-market mentality is that the only mechanism required to ensure correct reporting is the loss of revenue due to competitors valuation of lending risk being more accurate than one's own. And of course, the consumer is the one who always gets shafted under this system.
Credit reports are a double-edged sword. On the one hand, they are a necessary aspect of determining credit risk. On the other hand, they are used these days to evaluate far more than one's creditworthiness--and they do so using very personal and specific data about you, information that you would think ought to be your right to know whether they are being used for or against you. The system is corrupt because it is being increasingly applied to aspects of one's life far beyond what was originally intended, yet the borrower is really the only party who truly cares about the accuracy of the data it contains.
Not as it applied to the iPhone. Remember, people were lining up to pay $500 for the iPhone when it first came out--and yet it was exclusively on AT&T. Only the 3G models were subsidized.
You can't simply ignore the fact that there are a large number of iPhone users who would not choose AT&T as their carrier, but are willing to sacrifice the quality of mobile service for the convenience and features of the device. For a significant proportion of iPhone (and hence, AT&T) users, the issue therefore is not directly about cost. Many of them are capable of paying $100/month for service. $200 off the price of the phone is nothing in comparison to the cost of a 2-year contract. If it means better coverage and more flexibility, they would have no problem paying the unsubsidized cost of the phone in exchange for not being forced to go with AT&T.
As for non-iPhone devices, yes, your statement has some merit, but this is only true to the extent that handset manufacturers have traditionally provided similar devices to multiple carriers. Because of the runaway success of the exclusive iPhone+AT&T arrangement, competing handset makers are now seeking to copy that model, which ultimately does not bode well for the consumer. It is my longstanding hope that Apple will soon terminate their exclusive arrangement with AT&T, because it is not only good for them (as it increases their reach and provides them more leverage with the various carriers), but it is also good for the consumer.
Indeed...I agree with that sentiment. I seem to recall a great deal of controversy over "vigilante justice" in the case of a young Korean woman who was photographed for failing to clean up after her dog on the subway, and subsequently humiliated.