Steve Jobs was an impostor, a thief, and a disgrace for the industry, he just managed to convince an horde of people into the contrary because of **ding ding shiny**
Well, its apparent that you have terribly little respect for the average computer user, but let me assure you that generally as adults they have the ability to make decisions based on what they want, and if they want a Mac that doesnt make them stupid. Possibly they are uninformed and unaware of "better" alternatives, but Ive long ago learned that it borders on arrogance to think that because Macs seem a waste of money to you, that a user is an imbecile for wanting one.
If what a user wants is primarily a device that doesnt put in front of them all the decisions about what kinds of programs to run and what sources to run from, thats their decision, and Jobs isnt "evil" for offering it. You can call it lock-in, sure, but evil? Are the users also evil for wanting (as evidenced by their continued patronage) these "evil" devices?
What both you and RMS are missing is that not everyone shares the same values when it comes to computing; and while you could make a case that certain values are long-term worse for "computing" as an open field, maybe "computing as an open field" isnt what the majority want. Calling it evil is arbitrary and an inability to see other's viewpoints.
user freedom= their ability to use programs they did not create in a way that preserves their freedom. What programs are available constitutes a market. He is talking about market choices.
feel like if he had to compromise with MS for example to keep GNU alive and kickin...
Hypothetically, if his inability to compromise had lead to a situation where MS utterly refused to work with anyone on SecureBoot and we ended up with locked bootloaders, how would it help anyone that he had principles?
Sometimes compromise is necessary if your goal is truly to preserve other's rights / welfare. If your goal is simply to remain true to a FOSS principle at all costs, go right ahead, but its not terribly productive.
Theres a huge difference between taking away market choices (ie, by not offering them) and stripping someone of personal liberty; a difference that he apparently does not get.
RMS comes across as an intelligent dude, and I respect that he is consistent, but he seriously lacks perspective and I think his priorities / values are all out of whack. I feel like if he had to compromise with MS for example to keep GNU alive and kicking, he would rather go down with the ship; its noble but its not terribly practical.
-> what overhead? data overhead which is so much trouble if we have such an excessive amount of bandwidth?
The overhead that comes from using a non-point-to-point, general purpose protocol.
-> the connection does not need to be opened and closed for each transfer - why not keep it open?
Not being a USB engineer, I cannot answer that, but I have a feeling it has to do with the fact that you could in theory have a hub connected and a printer might want use of the USB line for a bit, and an "always open" connection would block that. Its just a guess.
But regardless, throw an SSD on USB 3 and run IOmeter, then compare with an SSD on SATA. The USB one will have latency ~10x higher or worse, potentially much worse. response times for SATA will be under 1ms (closer to 0.5ms), response times on USB can be 10+ ms. I believe I saw as high as 40ms in my testing. Its been about 15 years since USB came out, if what you were suggesting were a no-brainer I think they would have done it already.
-> any kind of data can be transmitted over USB, also a TRIM command; but I have to admit that there might be need for a new 'mass storage class' that is targetted at SSDs.
They already have something like that, its called eSATA. USB isnt a storage protocol, and trying to make it one will just make it a poor copy of SATA.
USB will never replace SATA:
* It hits the CPU for each transfer
* the overhead is higher
* The latency is way higher, as it needs to set up and tear down connections for each transfer
* It doesnt support ATA commands (TRIM, for one)
So if Fox news reports in a way that reinforces its conservative leanings, and Al Jazeera reports in a way that backs up their own leanings, Fox is more biased than AJ?
Fox wants to persuade you to vote against your own self interest and will knowingly lie to it's audience to achieve that
Baloney, like the large majority of people with strong political leanings, they believe that their own particular leanings are in the best interest of society. To say otherwise seems to me to imply that ALL conservatives have it out for "everyone else", which is hogwash.
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child is a citizen if
* the U.S. citizen parent has been "physically present"[7] in the U.S. before the child's birth for a total period of at least five years, and
* at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent's fourteenth birthday
This applies to out-of-us-territory births, of course. It has nothing to do with "women as chattel", it has to do with whether we grant citizenship to folks born outside of our country when their parents may have insubstantial ties to this country.
The pro gun argument is that when the country was founded and the government contract was written, the smart folks who wrote the contract figured it was a pretty good idea to lock in gun ownership rights.
And generally we think they were right about that every bit as much as the other amendments, and generally for the same reasons: There are certain rights we think it is terribly dangerous to leave solely in the hands of the government.
Er, owning a bible is not illegal in china. You can actually buy legit NIV bibles there. Chinese nationals can even buy legit, non tampered-with bibles there.
What is illegal, is to talk about the bible or the gospel with anyone under the age of 18 or outside of the context of a state-run church.
Try again, preferably with an example that you know something about.
They received a tip from friends, they checked the dudes car, saw it had been in a wreck, matched it (via paint? Impact sites? other methods?) to the vehicle the dude hit, and went after him for a hit and run.
Not seeing the problem here, except that you failed to read the article.
Not even driving while intoxicated is, of itself, a criminal act, since it's entirely possible to do so without actually maiming or killing anyone or even violating traffic laws.
A family friend has a huge problem with alcohol and DUIs, and he keeps not getting jail time for it. Basically everyone who cares in the slightest about this dude is hoping that he ends up in jail and can maybe get a big enough shock that he stops doing it.
Punishments for crimes are supposed to suck enough that you stop doing the crime.
You can also not think its wrong to chop the tops off of parking meters or rob a bank; that just means you have terribly poor judgement and are generally a menace to society.
From : However, it is not true such regulations (which apply only to Canadian broadcasters using Canadian airwaves) have kept the Fox News Channel from gaining entry into Canada, or that they were invoked to boot Fox News out of that country after the channel was established there. The CRTC approved an application to bring the Fox News Channel to Canadian digital television line-ups back in November 2004, and that channel is now carried by dozens of different digital providers throughout Canada.
From : Fox News Channel is currently offered by Access Communications, Bell TV, Cogeco, Eastlink, Manitoba Telecom Services, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw Cable, Shaw Direct and Telus TV. An exception is Vidéotron, Canada's third-largest cable company, which has not added Fox News Channel to its lineup.
Not just "disagrees", but has direct citations indicating that your post is repeating a straight up lie-- the same thing you accuse Fox of.
Hypocrisy much? Why would you even post something that is straight up false, and then post the source that explains how its false?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_(Christian_organization)#The_Fellowship_and_Uganda Its not what you make it out to be. Basically, one guy who is behind the bill mentioned that conversations with this group 4 years ago influenced him to make this bill. Thats not at all the same as "spearheaded by christian groups"; its "has a tenuous link to a single christian group".
Im not suprised its "been repudiated", since its all based off of a single comment that one guy made, and is being blown up into some conspiracy by evangelical leaders.
Everyone has bias, and if you havent seen it in your favorite news source its simply because
* You agree with them, and / or
* You havent been paying attention
Slashdot Mirror
Steve Jobs was an impostor, a thief, and a disgrace for the industry, he just managed to convince an horde of people into the contrary because of **ding ding shiny**
Well, its apparent that you have terribly little respect for the average computer user, but let me assure you that generally as adults they have the ability to make decisions based on what they want, and if they want a Mac that doesnt make them stupid. Possibly they are uninformed and unaware of "better" alternatives, but Ive long ago learned that it borders on arrogance to think that because Macs seem a waste of money to you, that a user is an imbecile for wanting one.
If what a user wants is primarily a device that doesnt put in front of them all the decisions about what kinds of programs to run and what sources to run from, thats their decision, and Jobs isnt "evil" for offering it. You can call it lock-in, sure, but evil? Are the users also evil for wanting (as evidenced by their continued patronage) these "evil" devices?
What both you and RMS are missing is that not everyone shares the same values when it comes to computing; and while you could make a case that certain values are long-term worse for "computing" as an open field, maybe "computing as an open field" isnt what the majority want. Calling it evil is arbitrary and an inability to see other's viewpoints.
TIL: Feelings and emotion are nonsense and can be utterly disregarded when interacting with other human beings.
user freedom= their ability to use programs they did not create in a way that preserves their freedom.
What programs are available constitutes a market. He is talking about market choices.
feel like if he had to compromise with MS for example to keep GNU alive and kickin...
Hypothetically, if his inability to compromise had lead to a situation where MS utterly refused to work with anyone on SecureBoot and we ended up with locked bootloaders, how would it help anyone that he had principles?
Sometimes compromise is necessary if your goal is truly to preserve other's rights / welfare. If your goal is simply to remain true to a FOSS principle at all costs, go right ahead, but its not terribly productive.
Its not about treachery, its about not trampling over someone's name while friends / family are still grieving his death.
You know, respect and courtesy for your common man and all that.
Seriously, his comments couldnt have waited a month or two?
Theres a huge difference between taking away market choices (ie, by not offering them) and stripping someone of personal liberty; a difference that he apparently does not get.
RMS comes across as an intelligent dude, and I respect that he is consistent, but he seriously lacks perspective and I think his priorities / values are all out of whack. I feel like if he had to compromise with MS for example to keep GNU alive and kicking, he would rather go down with the ship; its noble but its not terribly practical.
-> what overhead? data overhead which is so much trouble if we have such an excessive amount of bandwidth?
The overhead that comes from using a non-point-to-point, general purpose protocol.
-> the connection does not need to be opened and closed for each transfer - why not keep it open?
Not being a USB engineer, I cannot answer that, but I have a feeling it has to do with the fact that you could in theory have a hub connected and a printer might want use of the USB line for a bit, and an "always open" connection would block that. Its just a guess.
But regardless, throw an SSD on USB 3 and run IOmeter, then compare with an SSD on SATA. The USB one will have latency ~10x higher or worse, potentially much worse. response times for SATA will be under 1ms (closer to 0.5ms), response times on USB can be 10+ ms. I believe I saw as high as 40ms in my testing. Its been about 15 years since USB came out, if what you were suggesting were a no-brainer I think they would have done it already.
-> any kind of data can be transmitted over USB, also a TRIM command; but I have to admit that there might be need for a new 'mass storage class' that is targetted at SSDs.
They already have something like that, its called eSATA. USB isnt a storage protocol, and trying to make it one will just make it a poor copy of SATA.
You cannot get the overhead down without making USB into a storage-specific protocol...
at which point you've just re-made eSATA.
Why not just use the storage specific protocol we already have?
USB will never replace SATA:
* It hits the CPU for each transfer
* the overhead is higher
* The latency is way higher, as it needs to set up and tear down connections for each transfer
* It doesnt support ATA commands (TRIM, for one)
So if Fox news reports in a way that reinforces its conservative leanings, and Al Jazeera reports in a way that backs up their own leanings, Fox is more biased than AJ?
Fox wants to persuade you to vote against your own self interest and will knowingly lie to it's audience to achieve that
Baloney, like the large majority of people with strong political leanings, they believe that their own particular leanings are in the best interest of society. To say otherwise seems to me to imply that ALL conservatives have it out for "everyone else", which is hogwash.
When you say "corn and soy", do you by any chance mean silage?
How do you feel about eating some good old green silage?
As I said here, (from wikipedia)
If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child is a citizen if
* the U.S. citizen parent has been "physically present"[7] in the U.S. before the child's birth for a total period of at least five years, and
* at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent's fourteenth birthday
This applies to out-of-us-territory births, of course. It has nothing to do with "women as chattel", it has to do with whether we grant citizenship to folks born outside of our country when their parents may have insubstantial ties to this country.
I should have included that, but didnt seem relevant in the context. Apologies if it was misleading.
The pro gun argument is that when the country was founded and the government contract was written, the smart folks who wrote the contract figured it was a pretty good idea to lock in gun ownership rights.
And generally we think they were right about that every bit as much as the other amendments, and generally for the same reasons: There are certain rights we think it is terribly dangerous to leave solely in the hands of the government.
Er, owning a bible is not illegal in china. You can actually buy legit NIV bibles there. Chinese nationals can even buy legit, non tampered-with bibles there.
What is illegal, is to talk about the bible or the gospel with anyone under the age of 18 or outside of the context of a state-run church.
Try again, preferably with an example that you know something about.
They received a tip from friends, they checked the dudes car, saw it had been in a wreck, matched it (via paint? Impact sites? other methods?) to the vehicle the dude hit, and went after him for a hit and run.
Not seeing the problem here, except that you failed to read the article.
Not even driving while intoxicated is, of itself, a criminal act, since it's entirely possible to do so without actually maiming or killing anyone or even violating traffic laws.
"Interesting" is an appropriate mod for this take on reality. DUIs are criminal offenses in most countries, according to wikipedia.
Id be interested to know where you got your information, and certainly hope that you didnt get the rest of your driving knowledge from there.
A family friend has a huge problem with alcohol and DUIs, and he keeps not getting jail time for it. Basically everyone who cares in the slightest about this dude is hoping that he ends up in jail and can maybe get a big enough shock that he stops doing it.
Punishments for crimes are supposed to suck enough that you stop doing the crime.
What if they don't think it's wrong?
You can also not think its wrong to chop the tops off of parking meters or rob a bank; that just means you have terribly poor judgement and are generally a menace to society.
When you expect strawmen rather than reasoned discussion, its a sign youve been on slashdot too long.
So apparently being a republican makes me part of the richest 1% in the country, despite what my paycheck says.
Keep supporting partisanship and divisiveness, its what makes people so great. Oh wait no, its why congress cant get anything done.
From :
However, it is not true such regulations (which apply only to Canadian broadcasters using Canadian airwaves) have kept the Fox News Channel from gaining entry into Canada, or that they were invoked to boot Fox News out of that country after the channel was established there. The CRTC approved an application to bring the Fox News Channel to Canadian digital television line-ups back in November 2004, and that channel is now carried by dozens of different digital providers throughout Canada.
From :
Fox News Channel is currently offered by Access Communications, Bell TV, Cogeco, Eastlink, Manitoba Telecom Services, Rogers, SaskTel, Shaw Cable, Shaw Direct and Telus TV. An exception is Vidéotron, Canada's third-largest cable company, which has not added Fox News Channel to its lineup.
Not just "disagrees", but has direct citations indicating that your post is repeating a straight up lie-- the same thing you accuse Fox of.
Hypocrisy much? Why would you even post something that is straight up false, and then post the source that explains how its false?
Its pretty similar to the BBC, and Im almost certain Ive seen it on US cable at my office before.
Generalizations and stereotypes are almost never universally true, and generally make you look like an ignorant jerk for implying such.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_(Christian_organization)#The_Fellowship_and_Uganda
Its not what you make it out to be. Basically, one guy who is behind the bill mentioned that conversations with this group 4 years ago influenced him to make this bill. Thats not at all the same as "spearheaded by christian groups"; its "has a tenuous link to a single christian group".
Im not suprised its "been repudiated", since its all based off of a single comment that one guy made, and is being blown up into some conspiracy by evangelical leaders.
Everyone has bias, and if you havent seen it in your favorite news source its simply because
* You agree with them, and / or
* You havent been paying attention