Meanwhile the Apple doesnt have a touchscreen, and has a crappier resolution.
its not a very balanced system.
Utter bull. Intel graphics have been able to drive 1366x768 for YEARS, and somehow the latest Intel HD 5000 driving that resolution is "balanced"? The Zenbook should have no trouble whatsoever driving 1900x1080; this is the first time ive ever seen a better screen (with touch no less) touted as a flaw.
Yes, haswell is exclusive. No, it doesnt matter terribly much compared to other stats; 90% of users-- particularly those looking for a 13" laptop-- will not care about the ~10% max speed difference that it might make.
Dude, this is slashdot. Ive seen communism praised and Cuba lauded as the pinnacle of human governance here. Ive seen the 5th amendment protections against self-incrimination and the 4th's protections against unreasonable search brought into question. The second and first amendment are child's things in comparison.
One wonders whether the people posting this stuff are even Americans, or whether theyre foreigners who simply dont understand our history and WHY we have all of these restrictions on our government. Heres a hint; however nasty you think corporations are, very rarely in history have they come close to being as nasty as governments. The East India trading company may have been a piece of work, but they didnt lock dissenters up for "wrecking" or sentence them to reeducation by hard labor.
Great, youve just outlawed every political group in existence. By this logic Americans could be forbidden from any politically-motivated gathering or organization (after all, the group isnt a citizen).
Any chance you want to give that a second thought?
Im pretty sure that "forbidding the statement of one's political opinion" is EXACTLY what the first amendment was trying to protect against.
Im actually a little astonished that there are americans who would even advocate considering that. You worry about corporations in the same breath that you promote repression of free political speech?
Corporations have disproportionate cash resources compared to individuals and so should be disqualified from "expressing an opinion".
That sounds great in theory, and less great when you realize you could use the same logic to block freedom of the press: you could just argue that the "press" isnt an individual, so barring them from accepting business from particular people over certain political topics isnt a problem. Corporations are put together and owned by citizens, and those citizens have the full rights and protections of the constitution whether you like it or not.
You can attempt to justify it however you like, but your short-sighted worry about the influence of advertising has led you to advocate ripping out the only things preventing China-style repression over political views. I leave it to you whether advertising, or 5 years of hard labor for dissenting from the ruling party, is a bigger evil in your eyes.
Citizenship? I'd be amenable to those. College degree? Maybe. Clean record -- torn here... as this could be abused to restrict candidates... what did you have in mind?
Are you proposing barring people from running for office based on extra-constitutional requirements? Seems like a dark road to be going down.
Or are you just proposing barring them from using their own or donated money to get the word out?
What you thought you could say you were a candidate and then buy a boat?
I wasnt even going down that road. I was just remarking on how many nutcase candidates you will be funding with taxpayer dollars. As I recall a homeless man recently got on the ballot with 10k signatures, and another in a different state managed to win enough votes in the primary to beat out the Republican or Democrat (forget which) favorite.
That said, of all approaches to campaign reform, this one is probably the safest-- except it completely fails to deal with "what about when a company wishes to express their opinion about candidate A in an on-air ad?"
In an ironic twist, the phone brand that noone wants is probably also the only one the NSA COULDNT tap.
Consider that with PRISM / the google SSL intercepts, they never actually broke SSL-- they went after the data post-decryption-- most probably because they cant break SSL Then consider that even if they can, Blackberries do end-to-end symmetric AES, which is a heck of a lot more secure than the common SSL setups.
Just another reason to lament the passing of an actually decent business phone.
So whats the solution? Make it illegal to state a political opinion? Make it illegal to pay someone to state theirs? Make it illegal to say political opinions on the air?
While I'm not a fan of Steve or Apple, Apple PCs are still superior PCs. It's just not in "geeky" stuff like processor speed or 3D performance which Apple has no control over, it's in some tangibles like quality and some other things that I personally don't give a shit about ("Design", "Form Factor").
Bull. Its noone elses problem that Mac fans insist on comparing $1200 Macs with $400 Dells. Compare a Mac with a laptop in the same price bracket, and you start to realize that there actually is competition out there. Check out the Samsung Ativ 9, or the last-year's Samsung Series 7s, or the Asus Zenbook prime.
I have little to add to this discussion (not really having a horse in this race) but this meme is remarkably stupid. I saw it with the whole "HTTP to go binary only" as well, and everyone panicked as if it meant that they would no longer be able to do a packet trace of HTTP.
Log files are already "binary" in a particular encoding called ASCII, and there are plenty of parsers for it. I imagine that when a new log format is shipped, they will ship a utility to parse the new format. There are things you cannot do with ASCII that you can with "binary" formats, and AFAICT theres very little downside other than you cant use cat to read the logs (as if thats a criteria for goodness).
Dangerous? to whom? The only danger is that we end up with a fairer system.
Do you understand why we have free political speech? The "danger" is you end up with a system where the government can arbitrarily decide that your speech is not allowed -- without any of the current restraints we place on their ability to do so. The entire point of a democracy is that the people can be heard; allowing those in power to decide WHAT may be heard undermines that.
There's no slippery slope argument here at all, so why are people insisting that there is
Yes, there is, because every test we have for whether speech may be restricted by the government hinges on the question of whether it has political value. If you get rid of that restraint, there is absolutely no check on what speech may be curtailed, and you might as well rip "freedom of the press" and "freedom of speech" right on out of the constitution.
You may think that the problems we have are bad enough that its worth the risk that we end up with a CPC-style regime, I do not. Many of the stipulations in the Bill of Rights are inconvenient, but they are very important, even if slashdotters want to question the protections against double jeopardy, self-incrimination, political repression, etc. Our founders understood what a too-powerful government was capable of; its a little disheartening that so many today dont.
No. But how you spend your money on advertising is as much "speech" as is paying a printing press to publish your opinion.
In other words, "money" isnt exactly the same as speech, but the two are often tied together; if make it illegal to use your money to state your political view, then for all practical purposes you have abolished free speech.
If shouting 'FIRE' in a crowed theater is a acceptable limitation of free speech,
Shouting fire in a crowded theatre has a sufficiently negative outcome, and such an insignificant worth as political speech, that restricting it isnt really a problem.
so is campaign finance limitations.
Youre now talking about restricting political speech which is EXACTLY what the first amendment was designed to protect. It is such an important thing that we have the right to say anything without restriction in the political arena, that Im not really comfortable
but not to buy influence by directly or indirectly funding candidates in voting.
You can attempt to word it however you like, but the first amendment makes it clear that congress may not regulate speech in any way shape or form, nor may any state legislature. There are some exceptions, and as I recall one of the criteria for those exceptions was that the speech being restricted must have no political value.
You talk of "buying influence" but theres no way around it; unless you want to make it illegal to be paid to state your opinion (which would kill commercials and would also seem to be a serious compromise), any attempt I can think of to control campaign advertising would be a dangerous attack on political speech.
However, as long as billionaires and their corporations control political funding, there is no chance that we will be able to vote in people that can make a real difference.
Thats not really true. The votes still have to come from the people; all the funding does is get the word out.
We need real political finance reform in order to have lasting effect.
To my eyes the problem is that restricting the things an organization may say (in advertising, for example) seems to run directly afoul of the first amendment.
Seems to me youre saying you think the indirect influence of lobbying / campaign contributions has a sufficiently negative effect that it outweighs directly attacking the right of free speech. Im not really comfortable with that notion, the first amendment seems pretty core to a functioning democracy.
The java apps that are the security problems are the ones the user never wanted to run to begin with, and probably wont click now (because they dont know it exists-- ie, ad-injected applets).
Post a tablet priced cheaper, better specs, but 0.1 lbs heavier? The claim will be that the iPad is better because its more portable. Post a tablet priced around the same, better weight / thickness, but not as good screen? iPad is better!
I will admit that when it comes to being exactly like an iPad, Apple does it best.
Slashdot Mirror
Meanwhile the Apple doesnt have a touchscreen, and has a crappier resolution.
its not a very balanced system.
Utter bull. Intel graphics have been able to drive 1366x768 for YEARS, and somehow the latest Intel HD 5000 driving that resolution is "balanced"? The Zenbook should have no trouble whatsoever driving 1900x1080; this is the first time ive ever seen a better screen (with touch no less) touted as a flaw.
Yes, haswell is exclusive. No, it doesnt matter terribly much compared to other stats; 90% of users-- particularly those looking for a 13" laptop-- will not care about the ~10% max speed difference that it might make.
When do we move all the city-dwellers ("new-persons") out into the country side and begin the glorious revolution of the people?
Theres basically no difference; youre setting arbitrary limits on speech in a way that runs smack dab afoul of the consitution.
"Im not banning all free speech, just certain political kinds" doesnt really pass muster.
Dude, this is slashdot. Ive seen communism praised and Cuba lauded as the pinnacle of human governance here. Ive seen the 5th amendment protections against self-incrimination and the 4th's protections against unreasonable search brought into question. The second and first amendment are child's things in comparison.
One wonders whether the people posting this stuff are even Americans, or whether theyre foreigners who simply dont understand our history and WHY we have all of these restrictions on our government. Heres a hint; however nasty you think corporations are, very rarely in history have they come close to being as nasty as governments. The East India trading company may have been a piece of work, but they didnt lock dissenters up for "wrecking" or sentence them to reeducation by hard labor.
Great, youve just outlawed every political group in existence. By this logic Americans could be forbidden from any politically-motivated gathering or organization (after all, the group isnt a citizen).
Any chance you want to give that a second thought?
Im pretty sure that "forbidding the statement of one's political opinion" is EXACTLY what the first amendment was trying to protect against.
Im actually a little astonished that there are americans who would even advocate considering that. You worry about corporations in the same breath that you promote repression of free political speech?
Corporations have disproportionate cash resources compared to individuals and so should be disqualified from "expressing an opinion".
That sounds great in theory, and less great when you realize you could use the same logic to block freedom of the press: you could just argue that the "press" isnt an individual, so barring them from accepting business from particular people over certain political topics isnt a problem. Corporations are put together and owned by citizens, and those citizens have the full rights and protections of the constitution whether you like it or not.
You can attempt to justify it however you like, but your short-sighted worry about the influence of advertising has led you to advocate ripping out the only things preventing China-style repression over political views. I leave it to you whether advertising, or 5 years of hard labor for dissenting from the ruling party, is a bigger evil in your eyes.
Citizenship? I'd be amenable to those. College degree? Maybe. Clean record -- torn here ... as this could be abused to restrict candidates... what did you have in mind?
Are you proposing barring people from running for office based on extra-constitutional requirements? Seems like a dark road to be going down.
Or are you just proposing barring them from using their own or donated money to get the word out?
What you thought you could say you were a candidate and then buy a boat?
I wasnt even going down that road. I was just remarking on how many nutcase candidates you will be funding with taxpayer dollars. As I recall a homeless man recently got on the ballot with 10k signatures, and another in a different state managed to win enough votes in the primary to beat out the Republican or Democrat (forget which) favorite.
That said, of all approaches to campaign reform, this one is probably the safest-- except it completely fails to deal with "what about when a company wishes to express their opinion about candidate A in an on-air ad?"
In an ironic twist, the phone brand that noone wants is probably also the only one the NSA COULDNT tap.
Consider that with PRISM / the google SSL intercepts, they never actually broke SSL-- they went after the data post-decryption-- most probably because they cant break SSL Then consider that even if they can, Blackberries do end-to-end symmetric AES, which is a heck of a lot more secure than the common SSL setups.
Just another reason to lament the passing of an actually decent business phone.
Back in the real world, individuals and hosts can be and are held liable for patent infringement.
I stand corrected, thats JS doing that.
Except that when I view that page in Chrome, I see the equations, and rightclicking them brings up a MathML specific menu.
So someones not being accurate here.
I knew there was a reason I came to slashdot: noone else does strawmen quite the same way.
Funds for campaigns should be taken from the city/state/country funds, in equal parts for all candidates.
Wonderful! Im a candidate. Funds, please.
So whats the solution? Make it illegal to state a political opinion? Make it illegal to pay someone to state theirs? Make it illegal to say political opinions on the air?
While I'm not a fan of Steve or Apple, Apple PCs are still superior PCs. It's just not in "geeky" stuff like processor speed or 3D performance which Apple has no control over, it's in some tangibles like quality and some other things that I personally don't give a shit about ("Design", "Form Factor").
Bull. Its noone elses problem that Mac fans insist on comparing $1200 Macs with $400 Dells. Compare a Mac with a laptop in the same price bracket, and you start to realize that there actually is competition out there. Check out the Samsung Ativ 9, or the last-year's Samsung Series 7s, or the Asus Zenbook prime.
AFAIK they do the scanning via JS in the gmail web client.
plus you get the benefit of binary log files!
I have little to add to this discussion (not really having a horse in this race) but this meme is remarkably stupid. I saw it with the whole "HTTP to go binary only" as well, and everyone panicked as if it meant that they would no longer be able to do a packet trace of HTTP.
Log files are already "binary" in a particular encoding called ASCII, and there are plenty of parsers for it. I imagine that when a new log format is shipped, they will ship a utility to parse the new format. There are things you cannot do with ASCII that you can with "binary" formats, and AFAICT theres very little downside other than you cant use cat to read the logs (as if thats a criteria for goodness).
How is this the important thing youre taking away from the article? Who cares whether she encrypted that stuff?
Dangerous? to whom? The only danger is that we end up with a fairer system.
Do you understand why we have free political speech? The "danger" is you end up with a system where the government can arbitrarily decide that your speech is not allowed -- without any of the current restraints we place on their ability to do so. The entire point of a democracy is that the people can be heard; allowing those in power to decide WHAT may be heard undermines that.
There's no slippery slope argument here at all, so why are people insisting that there is
Yes, there is, because every test we have for whether speech may be restricted by the government hinges on the question of whether it has political value. If you get rid of that restraint, there is absolutely no check on what speech may be curtailed, and you might as well rip "freedom of the press" and "freedom of speech" right on out of the constitution.
You may think that the problems we have are bad enough that its worth the risk that we end up with a CPC-style regime, I do not. Many of the stipulations in the Bill of Rights are inconvenient, but they are very important, even if slashdotters want to question the protections against double jeopardy, self-incrimination, political repression, etc. Our founders understood what a too-powerful government was capable of; its a little disheartening that so many today dont.
So you believe that money = free speech.
No. But how you spend your money on advertising is as much "speech" as is paying a printing press to publish your opinion.
In other words, "money" isnt exactly the same as speech, but the two are often tied together; if make it illegal to use your money to state your political view, then for all practical purposes you have abolished free speech.
If shouting 'FIRE' in a crowed theater is a acceptable limitation of free speech,
Shouting fire in a crowded theatre has a sufficiently negative outcome, and such an insignificant worth as political speech, that restricting it isnt really a problem.
so is campaign finance limitations.
Youre now talking about restricting political speech which is EXACTLY what the first amendment was designed to protect. It is such an important thing that we have the right to say anything without restriction in the political arena, that Im not really comfortable
but not to buy influence by directly or indirectly funding candidates in voting.
You can attempt to word it however you like, but the first amendment makes it clear that congress may not regulate speech in any way shape or form, nor may any state legislature. There are some exceptions, and as I recall one of the criteria for those exceptions was that the speech being restricted must have no political value.
You talk of "buying influence" but theres no way around it; unless you want to make it illegal to be paid to state your opinion (which would kill commercials and would also seem to be a serious compromise), any attempt I can think of to control campaign advertising would be a dangerous attack on political speech.
However, as long as billionaires and their corporations control political funding, there is no chance that we will be able to vote in people that can make a real difference.
Thats not really true. The votes still have to come from the people; all the funding does is get the word out.
We need real political finance reform in order to have lasting effect.
To my eyes the problem is that restricting the things an organization may say (in advertising, for example) seems to run directly afoul of the first amendment.
Seems to me youre saying you think the indirect influence of lobbying / campaign contributions has a sufficiently negative effect that it outweighs directly attacking the right of free speech. Im not really comfortable with that notion, the first amendment seems pretty core to a functioning democracy.
As security models go, it's a poor one.
The java apps that are the security problems are the ones the user never wanted to run to begin with, and probably wont click now (because they dont know it exists-- ie, ad-injected applets).
Moving goalposts for the win!
Post a tablet priced cheaper, better specs, but 0.1 lbs heavier? The claim will be that the iPad is better because its more portable.
Post a tablet priced around the same, better weight / thickness, but not as good screen? iPad is better!
I will admit that when it comes to being exactly like an iPad, Apple does it best.