The Benefon Esc! was the first phone with an internal GPS receiver. PDA users had been using their phones with external GPS receivers for years at that point. The Nokia 7600 was the first with a 3G radio.
The first few iPhones were the best hardware-wise, for a short time after their release. All it means is that Apple, the gorilla in the room, got access to the best new hardware before a bit before anyone else, what an achievement.
I'm sure Bush would have done just as bad, but he wasn't President to do it. Obama did those things, therefore he did do worse than Bush and Cheney did.
Just as I'm sure McCain or Romney would have done *even worse* but they weren't president to do it either, so Obama has also done worse than either of them.
I've been aiming to drive in One Lap of America, my plan is to take only my N900, I'd wipe it clean before flying and after arriving restore it from an encrypted backup, either transferred over the Internet or hidden on my person. Same procedure for flying back.
Still, considering that's just the *extraction process* for natural gas, and it's second to coal power, before that NG is even burned...that's REALLY fucking bad.
I'd be shocked if you could log into Facebook through Tor, it's being treated as the Internet's leper colony these days, half the sites out there blacklist all exit node IPs.
And if you're using anything resembling a standard browser for Facebook and other things, they know everywhere you go on the web...and associate it with your real name.
I'd rather live in a free society where people can say objectionable, possibly even bigoted things, and may even become the norm, than an oppressive censored one. IRL I find climate denialism incredibly stupid and it's certainly damaging to our society and environment, but I've never advocated or even fantasized about state censorship of climate denialist speech. I don't argue for the creation of objectionable speech but I certainly argue for its right to exist and be as freely accessible as anything else.
It's not directly analogous because in the US at least, Nazi propaganda would be completely legal to broadcast on TV while any kind of porn would be heavily restricted (time, ratings, etc - as I mentioned before). Also porn and propaganda are very different. You could have one that is both I guess, like a more hardcore version of the recruitment ads in the Starship Troopers movie...but I've never seen or heard of any. Both could fall under "things that a person could find offensive."
If ABC news dedicated its resources to publishing nothing but Nazi propaganda, and started gaining in popularity, would you have the same view?
Is this some kind of analogy or just a gratuitous Godwin? We already have a world of laws around media ratings and public obscenity...if it's an analogy I just don't get it.
Tell me how it's different. You're saying that you are intolerant of certain activities by others that don't affect you negatively (let's say a pot smoke cloud can be as easily avoided as the sight of homosexual affection), you don't want to change this, and you're implying that those advocating tolerance are being intolerant towards you by not accommodating your intolerance. The subject is different but the logic is the same.
approval of which would suggest approval of deviancy and thus marginalize those of non-deviant lifestyles.
LOLWUT? Do you discuss porn preferences around the water cooler and shun co-workers who are into weird stuff? You could, but you don't.
Let's say that we live in your world where most people are closeted furries and BDSM fans just waiting to let everyone know about it once the deviants take over, presumably once a certain number of weird porn vids have been uploaded to the Internet (???). The positions have been switched between the "squares" and the deviants.
What does this change? In a tolerant first-world society with free speech...nothing.
Why make the distinction at all? Why is state censorship of pornography more acceptable than some non-titillating content? There are already laws in place to prevent the display of obscene material in public or to minors, why is state censorship necessary? Is the ability for those who seek it to access it too much for you to tolerate?
Your #4 sounds much like the bigot's call for tolerant people to tolerate their intolerance.
And in your #3, do the social consequences suddenly pop into being when X is legalized? Usually X creates more problems when illegal and the problems can be addressed through legalization , as in the case of alcohol and pot.
Your 1 and 2 aren't well-supported either. Most parents tell their kids not to do all kinds of things that are legal, personally I had no idea that legality ever factored into it. Religious parents will burden their kids with tons of rules about things that are otherwise legal.
2 is a possibility and depends on what X is. If you legalize suicide I don't think the frequency will change.
False dichotomy and reductio ad absurdium in one post.
We can draw lines near where activities harm others. All the kinky porn in the world won't harm anyone (unless they were harmed in the filming...and didn't want that).
Again you don't get economic power, they don't have to physically remove money by force or even take value in the form of money, there are other ways.
They can pollute and make you suffer with it rather than paying for cleanup (where people can actually be killed in the long term) - and I just ran into this article on that very problem while writing this. Collude or form cartels to force prices up. Abuse their monopoly as Microsoft did. Assault your senses with ads that are loud, intrusive or dangerous - for example a restaurant near my office has a sign on the sidewalk that greatly reduces visibility for cars coming onto the main road. Some people's cars get wrecked, they get better advertising. A user car dealership near my house does the same thing, parking their cars on grass near the road's edge, greatly reducing visibility. There's also the issue of loud ads on TVs that were regulated away recently, they exchanged TV viewers' comfort in their homes for their own advertising power. Selling private information in the lack of privacy regulations - see how Facebook operates in the US vs. Germany.
Yes technically you aren't forced to use any of these things and you could avoid them, only practically that's not true unless you want to live like the Unabomber. And because people are technically free through the "Unabomber option," libertarians wash their hands of all these problems.
Rumors have been going around for a while that the NSA is able to crack certain forms of SSL or lower-level AES, and their new data center is for a "store now, decrypt later" operation. Could this be what they have?
Using stupid people as robots...very smart indeed. The same thing could be done for wifi, or tracking the appearance of contrails. I'm sure there are plenty of possibilities previously unimagined due to insufficient cynicism.
Slashdot Mirror
The Benefon Esc! was the first phone with an internal GPS receiver. PDA users had been using their phones with external GPS receivers for years at that point. The Nokia 7600 was the first with a 3G radio.
Source:
http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/05/the-evolution-of-cell-phone-design-between-1983-2009/
I remember trying that too, although you're correct about the name. The challenge still stands.
The first few iPhones were the best hardware-wise, for a short time after their release. All it means is that Apple, the gorilla in the room, got access to the best new hardware before a bit before anyone else, what an achievement.
Came here to say this. And "style and ease of use" came at a great cost too, something I'd rather other companies didn't try to "catch up" with.
Find a free Samba client for iOS that is not trialware with a tiny file size limit, and a free VLC/Mplayer equivalent.* Ready? Go!
*These are the only apps I've tried to find for iOS, so far I have a 100% horrible dissatisfaction rate.
I'm sure Bush would have done just as bad, but he wasn't President to do it. Obama did those things, therefore he did do worse than Bush and Cheney did.
Just as I'm sure McCain or Romney would have done *even worse* but they weren't president to do it either, so Obama has also done worse than either of them.
I've been aiming to drive in One Lap of America, my plan is to take only my N900, I'd wipe it clean before flying and after arriving restore it from an encrypted backup, either transferred over the Internet or hidden on my person. Same procedure for flying back.
Still, considering that's just the *extraction process* for natural gas, and it's second to coal power, before that NG is even burned...that's REALLY fucking bad.
Ah that's where it is, I was just about to say "whoever got there second was dumb to build there and is causing the problem."
You'd figure that as an international sanctuary for the "radio-sensitive" nutbags, there would be no trouble selling real estate and moving away.
Ooh didn't know about FireGloves, gonna add that...
But even with all these, IP-based tracking could still be a problem.
I'd be shocked if you could log into Facebook through Tor, it's being treated as the Internet's leper colony these days, half the sites out there blacklist all exit node IPs.
And if you're using anything resembling a standard browser for Facebook and other things, they know everywhere you go on the web...and associate it with your real name.
I'd rather live in a free society where people can say objectionable, possibly even bigoted things, and may even become the norm, than an oppressive censored one. IRL I find climate denialism incredibly stupid and it's certainly damaging to our society and environment, but I've never advocated or even fantasized about state censorship of climate denialist speech. I don't argue for the creation of objectionable speech but I certainly argue for its right to exist and be as freely accessible as anything else.
It's not directly analogous because in the US at least, Nazi propaganda would be completely legal to broadcast on TV while any kind of porn would be heavily restricted (time, ratings, etc - as I mentioned before). Also porn and propaganda are very different. You could have one that is both I guess, like a more hardcore version of the recruitment ads in the Starship Troopers movie...but I've never seen or heard of any. Both could fall under "things that a person could find offensive."
If ABC news dedicated its resources to publishing nothing but Nazi propaganda, and started gaining in popularity, would you have the same view?
Is this some kind of analogy or just a gratuitous Godwin? We already have a world of laws around media ratings and public obscenity...if it's an analogy I just don't get it.
Tell me how it's different. You're saying that you are intolerant of certain activities by others that don't affect you negatively (let's say a pot smoke cloud can be as easily avoided as the sight of homosexual affection), you don't want to change this, and you're implying that those advocating tolerance are being intolerant towards you by not accommodating your intolerance. The subject is different but the logic is the same.
approval of which would suggest approval of deviancy and thus marginalize those of non-deviant lifestyles.
LOLWUT? Do you discuss porn preferences around the water cooler and shun co-workers who are into weird stuff? You could, but you don't.
Let's say that we live in your world where most people are closeted furries and BDSM fans just waiting to let everyone know about it once the deviants take over, presumably once a certain number of weird porn vids have been uploaded to the Internet (???). The positions have been switched between the "squares" and the deviants.
What does this change? In a tolerant first-world society with free speech...nothing.
Why make the distinction at all? Why is state censorship of pornography more acceptable than some non-titillating content? There are already laws in place to prevent the display of obscene material in public or to minors, why is state censorship necessary? Is the ability for those who seek it to access it too much for you to tolerate?
Your #4 sounds much like the bigot's call for tolerant people to tolerate their intolerance.
And in your #3, do the social consequences suddenly pop into being when X is legalized? Usually X creates more problems when illegal and the problems can be addressed through legalization , as in the case of alcohol and pot.
Your 1 and 2 aren't well-supported either. Most parents tell their kids not to do all kinds of things that are legal, personally I had no idea that legality ever factored into it. Religious parents will burden their kids with tons of rules about things that are otherwise legal.
2 is a possibility and depends on what X is. If you legalize suicide I don't think the frequency will change.
False dichotomy and reductio ad absurdium in one post.
We can draw lines near where activities harm others. All the kinky porn in the world won't harm anyone (unless they were harmed in the filming...and didn't want that).
Again you don't get economic power, they don't have to physically remove money by force or even take value in the form of money, there are other ways.
They can pollute and make you suffer with it rather than paying for cleanup (where people can actually be killed in the long term) - and I just ran into this article on that very problem while writing this. Collude or form cartels to force prices up. Abuse their monopoly as Microsoft did. Assault your senses with ads that are loud, intrusive or dangerous - for example a restaurant near my office has a sign on the sidewalk that greatly reduces visibility for cars coming onto the main road. Some people's cars get wrecked, they get better advertising. A user car dealership near my house does the same thing, parking their cars on grass near the road's edge, greatly reducing visibility. There's also the issue of loud ads on TVs that were regulated away recently, they exchanged TV viewers' comfort in their homes for their own advertising power. Selling private information in the lack of privacy regulations - see how Facebook operates in the US vs. Germany.
Yes technically you aren't forced to use any of these things and you could avoid them, only practically that's not true unless you want to live like the Unabomber. And because people are technically free through the "Unabomber option," libertarians wash their hands of all these problems.
They're determined to take the title of most evil tech company back from Apple!
THIS
I'm on the same bandwagon. DRM and DLC? Solved with a visit to TPB.
Rumors have been going around for a while that the NSA is able to crack certain forms of SSL or lower-level AES, and their new data center is for a "store now, decrypt later" operation. Could this be what they have?
Using stupid people as robots...very smart indeed. The same thing could be done for wifi, or tracking the appearance of contrails. I'm sure there are plenty of possibilities previously unimagined due to insufficient cynicism.