While AT&T are bad verizon is just as bad if not worse. Ihave watched verizons 3G network slow to a crawl.
You say that with no context as to where you live, which is very important. Because where I am, AT&T just turned on 3G less than six months ago, and it's slower than Verizon's which has been on for two years, and hasn't slowed down a bit since I got my Droid.
Says the guy who didn't post where he lives...
Overall, AT&T's 3G coverage is faster than Verizon's. In specific places, such as where AT&T *doesn't* have 3G coverage, or where coverage isn't terribly good, then Verizon's may be faster. But all told, AT&T takes the 3G speed crown in the US.
And all of these reasons of what makes an iPhone so amazing are why so many people jailbreak their iPhone?
And even *more* people *don't*. But yes, these reasons *are* why those that jailbreak their iPhone do so.
I hear more complaints about iPhone's and their programs going crazy (the twitter ones seem to be a issue lately) and the simple problems like not being able to read and reply to a text message without having to quit the game/app they are using then any other phone.
Apps can't both go crazy, and also not be able to run in the background. That's a huge reason why background apps disallowed.
Having to quit a game or app to reply to a text message is kind of a stupid argument, as you have to pause them anyway on other phones. Apps are supposed to pick up right where you left off when you restart them, and the iPhone 3GS starts apps really quickly, so it's not really that big of a deal for most apps. The only category that I can think of for which this is a really noticeable problem are streaming audio apps, like Pandora. Apple does provide a background streaming system on the iPhone, and some apps actually use it, but many don't. It's kind of difficult to assign blame here, but ultimately, this *is* something the user loses out on. But taken on the whole, it's not a huge price to pay for the overall quality of the iPhone experience otherwise. And for those people for whom it is a big deal, there's always Android.
If you need to modify your phone to a point that isn't factory standard/approved then it isn't the greatest ideas.
No, if you need to modify your phone to a point that it isn't factory standard/approved, then you bought the wrong phone.. No one ever said the iPhone is best for everyone. But it's certainly best for most people. But to make it best for those that should have bought an Android, or whatever, would have made the iPhone worse for everyone else.
Bitching about it when there's a phone sacrifices user experience for the very openness you want seems a bit selfish. As though you demand *everyone* do things your way. Android for the "power" users, iPhone for the rest of us. What's so wrong about that?
And a side note about background apps, you can be sure that Apple knows people want this and are working on it. It'll be interesting to see what iPhone OS 4 brings on that front.
You're confusing only-having-AppStore with not-allowing-other-programs.
No, I'm conflating them. The reason is that with the App Store only, you *cannot* have a non-Apple experience. With third-party stores, you can. Some devs will do it their own way out of dislike for the App Store, some will do it because their app is not allowed, and so on. Then instead of just iTunes App Store only, it's App Store, and many little individual developers' sites, and third party App Store competitors, which won't be as nicely integrated, and so on.
This is *exactly* my point.
Of course the average quality of the programs is higher, because all programs are checked. However, allowing other programs on the iPhone, while still having the AppStore as an easy way to buy/sell programs, would result in the AppStore having a similar quality level, while enabling choice for both developers and consumers.
You're right the App Store will maintain the same quality, but the overall iPhone experience will suffer, as having to deal with various app sources will take something that's extremely easy and well thought-out and add into a hodgepodge mess.
Again: having an AppStore should not exclude the possibility of developing/using apps through a different way.
"Should" depends on your goal. If your goal is most flexibility, then yes. If your goal is highest quality user experience, then no.
Obviously, that's the legal side of things.. I still don't think it's the correct thing to do. Apple has become the most dickhead company in the industry, far surpassing Microsoft or any other. Completely locked-down model, asshole contracts with developers etc.. Sure they're legally allowed to do so, but it's assholish move nevertheless.
Actually, it's not that simple. From the point of view of the tinkerer, you're correct, it's *not* the right thing to do. From the point of view of the consumer who will *never* tinker with it, it's actually very much the right thing to do.
This is because that lock down is what keeps the quality of the entire iPhone experience so high. Yes, there are fart apps and other mindless stupidities, but compared with other, more open, platforms, the overall quality of the software is higher. Yes, it means some specific apps or app types are disallowed, but the result is still a net gain, for the average consumer.
People often think "for idiot users, the iPhone is best, for intelligent geeks, Android is best", but even then it's not so clear. First off, being a normal person isn't being an idiot (I know you didn't say this, so I'm not putting words in your mouth, it's just a common sentiment). Second, even a lot of geeks prefer things to work more smoothly, which the iPhone does on the whole.
As for developers, it's a mixed bag. The barrier to entry is a little bit higher ($99, and some rules which are pretty easy to follow in most cases), but the potential rewards are significantly greater, and even if you're not in it for the money, just for the accomplishment of putting out an app that gets used, or your app is simply a way of helping people with some other thing for which you are more interested in, or whatever, having a pre-built store with such high quality as the iTunes App Store (yes, it has problems, but from sheer quality of the store and end-to-end interface for browsing, buying and installing, there's nothing better than iTunes) is invaluable, and the payment system extremely simple.
So, the formula that makes the iPhone a success is the exact same formula that you are decrying as being "dickheaded" and "assholish". If Apple had kept things completely open, or even just as open as Windows Mobile, Android, and Pre (don't kid yourself, none of those systems are fully open, they are just more open than iPhone by varying degrees), the iPhone would not be *nearly* as successful nor *nearly* as high a quality of an experience as it is now. Sure, a small percentage more geeks would buy one. Maybe, as some percentage of geeks would also *not* have bought one, but at least on the geek side it would be hard to say which way the balance would move. On the consumer side, however, it's pretty clear that fewer people would buy an iPhone, or at the very least, fewer people would buy their *second* iPhone, after being so frustrated with the first.
Finally, Apple's control helps prevent things like the recent story of the HTC Android phone that ships with the Mariposa bot net client. It also allows Apple to immediately pull apps that are harmful to the users or to the quality of the store itself (Apple has done this already) or in a worst case scenario, remove the app from people's phones altogether (this has never happened, but is reserved for cases of outright spyware, such as the Mariposa client). It's also interesting to note that all of the known exploits in the wild for iPhones have been for jailbroken iPhones, and not those with Apple's built-in security system intact.
Neither am I, which is why I wrote: "the two Alice books abound with satire"
Is the concept of deciding badly based on incomplete data satirized there, or is it just illustrated in a humorous way?
Um, that's a pretty close approximation to the definition of satire. The difference between satire and mere humor (such as in your sig) is that satire generally exposes some negative characteristic in a humorous way. It's similar to the difference between sarcasm and irony. Sarcasm is just irony that is meant to be biting or insulting.
In the case of the Walrus and the Carpenter, (and many of the events in those books) the thing is being satirized by either being absurd (such as the various Queens) or the way a simple-but-rational girl works through something that is often missed by full-grown adults (such as your examples of "fanboy wars or armchair political debates").
thus making any non-economic value of a human life entirely irrelevant.
No, the non-economic value of a human life is never irrelevant.
Ever.
You were equating the need for trained doctors with the need for trained sysadmins. The reason we need highly trained doctors is not due to the economic impact of poorly trained doctors, but because of the human impact of poorly trained doctors.
Your complete inability to disconnect your base emotions from a purely economic discussion is why I called you psychologically immature.
The value of a human life is not a "base" emotion. I can easily talk about the value of a human life in terms of economic output, the value of the elements in the body, the value as a customer or an employee, etc. But one must never forget that these are also humans.
To dissociate the value of a human as a human from a human, is the key ingredient of a psychopath.
Sort of. If you look at it in an absolutist, objective sense, then yes. If you look at it in a subjective, probability sense, it's not that difficult at all. In fact, most people successfully do this many times a day.
To say Charles Dodgson was satirizing his trade can only be speculative
Of course. But that's true of anything done by anyone. Even if they tell you to your face exactly what their intentions are, you can only ever speculate if they are telling the truth. At the end of the day, it always comes down to speculation.
and it's just as easy to speculate that he wasn't.
This is the part you get exactly wrong. It's *not* just as easy, because given that he was a mathematician, and that the two Alice books abound with satire, it's difficult to believe that he wasn't satirizing mathematics when his books have so many examples of such.
Ultimately, and I think you know this already, authors write what they know about. Dodgson knew math, so is it really so odd to think he included mathematical concepts in his story because he thought it would be cool?
Here's a simple litmus test. Does the math seem bolted-on? Or does it integrate with the work as a whole? If it feels bolted-on, then perhaps it's just something he thought would be cool. If it fits the work as a whole, then it's most likely meant to be taken in the same way the rest of the work is, which is very much to be satire.
Like you said, though, you can never be absolutely certain, but you can be certain enough to make a personal judgement.
I'm sorry you're too psychologically immature to recognize economic reality, but that's really not my problem, and hardly makes me a psychopath.
It's not a sign of being "psychologically mature" to hold the notion that human life is a fungible commodity.
A poor person in the slums of Bangalore is economically worth more dead (for his organs) than alive. You state that society places an economic value on everything, including people. Yet for some reason, society has outlawed murder, even if the result is a net monetary profit for society.
Your complete failure to comprehend that a human life is worth more than its economic value to society is why I called you a psychopath.
Society places economic value on everything, and the amount of damage a cracked server farm can potentially do far outstrips the economic value of a human life.
You forgot to start that sentence with, "you might be a psychopath if..."
I think you are severely underestimating the amount of education and training that goes into becoming a doctor. Becoming a sysadmin, even a highly qualified one, is *vastly* simpler.
The surgeon who kills someone might, if the victim's family is very lucky, be assessed damages of a couple million. An idiot with a cracked server farm can easily cause that much damage on the net.
WTF? In one case, a web server has been vandalized. In the other, a person is dead.
If Valve were to spend the money to develop for OSX, they'd never recoup it in profits because there's not a big enough installed base.
Did it ever occur to you, as you wrote this, to wonder how what you wrote could be true while there are plenty of successful Mac OS X games? Do you think Blizzard and ID (for example) run their Mac divisions at a loss?
They don't even have to develop the whole game, as the game itself already exists. All they have to do is port the engine over (or even just wrap it in Cider, although that would not be ideal). Porting an engine over takes a bit of effort, to be sure, but far less effort than it took to create the engine in the first place, or even to develop the story and art and levels, etc, for the game itself.
Then, of course, there's the fact that Steam is coming to Mac (by "fact", I mean there have been teasers from Valve which all point to this, although granted there hasn't been an "official" announcement). With Steam, the #1 hurdle to selling games for the Mac is surpassed, which is to connect the games to the gamers.
You say this as though somehow Apple is doing this because Apple feels threatened by such apps. I don't see exactly how, except that they clutter the store and potentially lead to compatibility issues (due to private API usage).
In other words, it's not that Apple feels directly threatened by such apps, but that the quality of the overall iPhone experience is threatened by such apps. In a sense, what you're saying is right, but *not* in the sense that you are saying it.
if you wanted options, you would have gone android... fucksticks.
iPhone has more software than Android, hence more options.
What you really mean is if we wanted specific options (those that aren't available for iPhone, but are for Android), we'd have gone Android. So what it really comes down to is whether one really wants (in this case) a WiFi finder. I certainly won't miss such apps. But you're right, if I did, Android might be a better option.
Uhhh...what great moral failure are we punishing them for? Licensing something we don't think should be licensed?
Absolutely. People always talk about "voting with your wallet". While I don't think it's generally effective, this is exactly what that is.
After all, what's the point in "voting with your wallet" if you can't exercise it to promote behavior you agree with, or punish behavior you disagree with?
Yes, it would be the first time. Microsoft doesn't offer any kind of licensing that requires an organization to use their software exclusively. If they did they would open themselves up to a whole new round of anti-trust litigation.
I don't understand this logic. The idea is that something would open them up to anti-trust issues, therefore they can't do it, or have ever done it in the past...
But they have already been convicted of anti-trust behavior an continue to run afoul of such laws around the world to this day. So clearly trust-related behavior isn't impossible for MS to engage in, in fact, it's specifically something that they *do* behave in.
For the specific allegation you've made, that MS hasn't and doesn't engage in licensing that precludes other OSs, look at the licenses that Dell, HP, etc., have that makes it very hard for them to offer Linux. MS even dictates things like the specs that netbooks must not exceed in order to be allowed to receive discounted licenses for XP!
It probably also makes it a lot easier on the IT support staff. They don't have to deal with a million different browsers, OS's, etc. They can just learn the MS stuff and sit on their asses never learning anything else.
Yeah, a million different browsers and OS's...
Let's see, IE, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, and just 999,992 more!
I realize "million" is meant to mean "a lot", but we're talking less than ten here. I realize there are different versions of each, but a competent IT staff can easily mandate specific versions as officially supported.
I didn't get that he knows it's impossible. The key thing here that makes it impossible is that drives don't actually write discrete ones and zeroes anymore. They write complex signals that represent a series of bits. Even with a very precise and accurate needle, one could not scan the surface of a drive and find discrete ones and zeroes.
Now, there *might* be a way to alter or specifically design the signals written to look like what a pure one or zero would look like (in the way people tend to imagine they would look), but that would require an extremely clever hack, assuming it's even possible at all.
You do realize the radioactive danger of any given substance is inversely proportional to it's half-life right?
Something like thorium-234, with a half-life of about 24 days, would be much worse, right?
I would be perfectly content to have a brick of depeleted uranium as a paperweight on my desk.
This just so happens to decay into thorium-234, which beings to build up over a fairly short amount of time. Fortunately, it seems like it would reach a fairly stable amount due to thorium's short half-life. Still, it would be prudent to do the math before calling depleted uranium mostly safe.
While, depleted uranium *is* much safer than uranium-235, it does contain U-235, and not at a huge amount less than natural uranium (around 1/3).
I wouldn't worry about a block on my desk either (although I would probably keep a dosimeter nearby, and use a geiger counter from time to time).
I wouldn't, however, want to have any uranium, even depleted uranium, physically near my body (such as, in jewelry) for any extended amount of time. I would also be mindful of the dangers of fire, which could create extremely dangerous smoke (as I'm sure from what you've written, that you are aware of). I would feel really bad were I to return home to find there was a fire and the uranium had harmed my neighbors and any emergency responders.
However, this all sidesteps the issue I brought up, which is the safe storage of radioactive waste. While a little brick would be mostly safe, we're talking about huge amounts. To put it differently, would you feel comfortable storing it in your back yard? (and I mean that literally, as much as would fit, up to say, six feet high, and if you don't have a back yard, let's pretend)
No, a meltdown is still possible... The safeguard in case of meltdown is the containment building, which consists of steel and concrete barriers. Chernobyl did not have such a barrier.
So, meltdown is still possible. I'm not sure what good steel and concrete barriers provide. I suspect they merely buy time, as opposed to being an actual long-term containment device?
Current Generation III designs also usually store emergency cooling water in tanks above the reactor, so in an emergency you just open a valve, instead of having to power mechanical pumps to cool the core. The number of parts is reduced to decrease the chance of system failure. Control systems have also been automated and simplified so operator error is less likely.
Still, I can definitely foresee a situation where a private business will not necessarily keep those systems in working order without strict government oversight.
Like I've already said more than once, I'm quite confident that nuclear power *can* be done safely, I just don't trust private enterprise to do it.
Additionally, in the case of meltdown, a water tank doesn't help (perhaps it can be designed to stop a meltdown by creating an explosion, but that seems like a bad Plan B). It would just be useful in the case of the main water supply being limited for some reason. The gravity tank would really just buy time to shut down the plant. I assume there are safeguards again, but what if the rods become stuck?
My point isn't to say, "aha! there's something that can still happen, therefore no nukes ever!", but to point out that these risks still exist, as most pro-nukers seem to believe that nuclear power is completely safe, or in your case, that it's almost completely safe.
As for long term low level emissions, coal power plants emit lots of radioactive material all the time, unfiltered, and no one bothers about it. Thorium, uranium, etc.
I never said I was worried about low-level radiation leakage. In fact, I made it pretty clear that below a certain amount it's really not a big deal at all.
Bringing up coal plants is a bit of a red herring. One could say that Safeway delivers lots of radioactive material all the time, since everything organic in the store contains radioactive elements. What would be more helpful would be to list the dosage rate near the plant, and the overall effect to the background radiation in the area. I assume coal doesn't cause enough to be an actual concern (except to those that cower in the corner simply upon hearing the word "radiation"). If it is, it would cause me to be against coal more than it would be to make me more favorable towards nuclear.
Did you ever wonder why, if nuclear waste storage is such a problem, even with Yucca Mountain not being allowed as a final storage place we are not up to our ears in waste already?
Come on, this is a silly thing to bring up. You should have deduced by now I'm not a nuclear chicken little. I know that the total volume of radioactive waste is not a vast sea. My concern isn't about the amount--I know it can't be more than the environment can handle, after all, *that's* where it came from in the first place! (I also know that it's possible for the waste to be *more* radioactive than the original fuel was, but I assume this isn't a significant problem) The problem is both the concentration, and the fact that it has to be managed for billions of years.
As for billions of years waste storage, Google "oklo nuclear reactor".
I'm well aware of natural nuclear reactors. These aren't located near major metropolitan areas of the US. If they were, this would not make me want to have *more* nuclear reactors.
What I don't understand, however, is how this addresses the issue of billions of years. I suppose you could be meaning that such a reactor would consume the fuel quicker than the half
Had any other company in the world released this you wouldn't have commented the way you did.
Correct, as Microsoft is the only high profile tech company that engages in such behavior time and time again. It's in the company's DNA.
IBM used to act in the same way, so I suppose were we to transport ourselves to the 60s, I'd respond similarly to them. But were in the 10s now, and MS has been the smoke-and-mirrors king for the past 30 years.
I also give MS kudos for the things they get right, so don't try to paint me as some sort of anti-MS troll. If you read my post through at least once, you'll notice I mention how cool the tech itself actually is (same for surface). What I'm criticizing them for is for not actually having a product where this is in use. This tech demo is clearly MS trying to get people to stop using Google, and switch to Bing. I don't hold that against them. What I hold against them is that they're pulling the same trick, yet again.
So now people remember seeing this cool video, and they forget that it's not a real product, so when Google comes out with an actual product, some jackass like yourself comes out with, "this Google product sucks, that MS thing that I saw in a video for a product that doesn't even exist is way better!"
On the other hand, if MS actually *does* get cameras everywhere (reasonably speaking), then I'll definitely agree with you, that theirs is a way more impressive product. But until then, I'm not stupid enough to believe that somehow this time MS is actually going to follow through. They've used up all their good will. From now on it's "show me the goods or STFU".
As for releasing tech demos, this was done right through their current map beta, which anyone can use. It's not vaporware.
Then surely you have a URL to a live camera feed like that in the TED talk?
I'm not convinced you've thought about this very hard. I won't hold it against you, because nobody, least of all government schools, will teach you this stuff.
Having an opinion different from yours is not a sign of not thinking something through.
Your simpleminded Ayn Randian view of Capitalism vs Socialism is fundamentally delusional. You say things like, "There is no idelogical difference between socialism and communism. Both words mean: the state is absolute, and any individual can and will be made to sacrifice for the "good" of others." and "Socialism will always suppress the best a man has to offer because he will be forced act [or not act] contrary to his own wishes."
Such thoughts are easily disproven. You have this idea of Socialism as being where the state will absolutely tell you everything you can ever do, and that's simply not true. You have the notion that Capitalism means you are free to do anything you are physically and mentally capable of. This is simply not true either.
Additionally, every society that has ever existed has had both capitalistic and socialistic aspects. Simply being able to barter your goods and services, or being able to whittle a piece of wood for your own enjoyment, is Capitalism, and having any sort of government whatsoever is Socialism.
The intelligent society would be one where the two forces are used to best serve the people.
Your simplistic view is a result of not being able to hold two diametrically opposed views at the same time. Everything is either all out black, or all out white, and grey is a failure.
Socialism is great. Capitalism is great. Pure Socialism or pure Capitalism are both evil, although if I had to pick one to be pure, I'd most definitely pick Capitalism (if I were rich) or Socialism (if I were poor). Fortunately, I'm not an imbecile, and I can choose both in varying measures for varying things.
Oh, and to address your notion that Socialism and Communism are the same thing, the difference is that in Communism, everything is done for the state. In Socialism, everything is down for the people. The formal definitions are that the state owns/controls the means of production (Communism) or the people own/control the means of production (Socialism).
In Capitalism, those with capital own/control the means of production, but looking a it from the opposite direction, everything done is done for those with capital. If you don't have capital, Capitalism sucks.
You rail against public schools, but I can promise you one thing. In a purely Capitalistic society, education would be much worse unless you were rich. It's only by Socialism that everyone in America has access to school, and is able to, if they can, learn.
Which makes the google demo look like something from 1996 in comparison. (Skip ahead to the 4:20 mark for some jaw-dropping live video overlaid on top of 3D interior shots of pike place market, generated from user pics.
The video you are referring to is a demo that required a guy with a camera to stream live for the presentation. Google's system actually works right now.
MS is superb at giving tech demos. They are even better at timing them to most strongly attack their opponents. But what they are awful at is delivering. Until MS gets enough cameras placed everywhere so that you can reasonably expect, even if primarily only in metropolitan areas, that they will have a camera view you can access, it's just going to be a cool gimmick that will have a camera on the Eiffel Tower, and one at Times Square, and maybe three in Seattle.
As of right now, they don't even have *one* set up anywhere.
It's fairly impressive, however, the way MS has this down to an art. They show this cool tech off, and everyone remembers how cool it is, and now existing products have to compete against an imaginary MS product that doesn't even exist and will most likely not exist any time soon.
They tried this with Surface when the iPhone debuted. That backfired, but even so, Suface, the demo, is damned cool. Surface, the reality, is a gimmick.
Slashdot Mirror
While AT&T are bad verizon is just as bad if not worse. Ihave watched verizons 3G network slow to a crawl.
You say that with no context as to where you live, which is very important. Because where I am, AT&T just turned on 3G less than six months ago, and it's slower than Verizon's which has been on for two years, and hasn't slowed down a bit since I got my Droid.
Says the guy who didn't post where he lives...
Overall, AT&T's 3G coverage is faster than Verizon's. In specific places, such as where AT&T *doesn't* have 3G coverage, or where coverage isn't terribly good, then Verizon's may be faster. But all told, AT&T takes the 3G speed crown in the US.
And all of these reasons of what makes an iPhone so amazing are why so many people jailbreak their iPhone?
And even *more* people *don't*. But yes, these reasons *are* why those that jailbreak their iPhone do so.
I hear more complaints about iPhone's and their programs going crazy (the twitter ones seem to be a issue lately) and the simple problems like not being able to read and reply to a text message without having to quit the game/app they are using then any other phone.
Apps can't both go crazy, and also not be able to run in the background. That's a huge reason why background apps disallowed.
Having to quit a game or app to reply to a text message is kind of a stupid argument, as you have to pause them anyway on other phones. Apps are supposed to pick up right where you left off when you restart them, and the iPhone 3GS starts apps really quickly, so it's not really that big of a deal for most apps. The only category that I can think of for which this is a really noticeable problem are streaming audio apps, like Pandora. Apple does provide a background streaming system on the iPhone, and some apps actually use it, but many don't. It's kind of difficult to assign blame here, but ultimately, this *is* something the user loses out on. But taken on the whole, it's not a huge price to pay for the overall quality of the iPhone experience otherwise. And for those people for whom it is a big deal, there's always Android.
If you need to modify your phone to a point that isn't factory standard/approved then it isn't the greatest ideas.
No, if you need to modify your phone to a point that it isn't factory standard/approved, then you bought the wrong phone.. No one ever said the iPhone is best for everyone. But it's certainly best for most people. But to make it best for those that should have bought an Android, or whatever, would have made the iPhone worse for everyone else.
Bitching about it when there's a phone sacrifices user experience for the very openness you want seems a bit selfish. As though you demand *everyone* do things your way. Android for the "power" users, iPhone for the rest of us. What's so wrong about that?
And a side note about background apps, you can be sure that Apple knows people want this and are working on it. It'll be interesting to see what iPhone OS 4 brings on that front.
You're confusing only-having-AppStore with not-allowing-other-programs.
No, I'm conflating them. The reason is that with the App Store only, you *cannot* have a non-Apple experience. With third-party stores, you can. Some devs will do it their own way out of dislike for the App Store, some will do it because their app is not allowed, and so on. Then instead of just iTunes App Store only, it's App Store, and many little individual developers' sites, and third party App Store competitors, which won't be as nicely integrated, and so on.
This is *exactly* my point.
Of course the average quality of the programs is higher, because all programs are checked. However, allowing other programs on the iPhone, while still having the AppStore as an easy way to buy/sell programs, would result in the AppStore having a similar quality level, while enabling choice for both developers and consumers.
You're right the App Store will maintain the same quality, but the overall iPhone experience will suffer, as having to deal with various app sources will take something that's extremely easy and well thought-out and add into a hodgepodge mess.
Again: having an AppStore should not exclude the possibility of developing/using apps through a different way.
"Should" depends on your goal. If your goal is most flexibility, then yes. If your goal is highest quality user experience, then no.
Obviously, that's the legal side of things.. I still don't think it's the correct thing to do. Apple has become the most dickhead company in the industry, far surpassing Microsoft or any other. Completely locked-down model, asshole contracts with developers etc.. Sure they're legally allowed to do so, but it's assholish move nevertheless.
Actually, it's not that simple. From the point of view of the tinkerer, you're correct, it's *not* the right thing to do. From the point of view of the consumer who will *never* tinker with it, it's actually very much the right thing to do.
This is because that lock down is what keeps the quality of the entire iPhone experience so high. Yes, there are fart apps and other mindless stupidities, but compared with other, more open, platforms, the overall quality of the software is higher. Yes, it means some specific apps or app types are disallowed, but the result is still a net gain, for the average consumer.
People often think "for idiot users, the iPhone is best, for intelligent geeks, Android is best", but even then it's not so clear. First off, being a normal person isn't being an idiot (I know you didn't say this, so I'm not putting words in your mouth, it's just a common sentiment). Second, even a lot of geeks prefer things to work more smoothly, which the iPhone does on the whole.
As for developers, it's a mixed bag. The barrier to entry is a little bit higher ($99, and some rules which are pretty easy to follow in most cases), but the potential rewards are significantly greater, and even if you're not in it for the money, just for the accomplishment of putting out an app that gets used, or your app is simply a way of helping people with some other thing for which you are more interested in, or whatever, having a pre-built store with such high quality as the iTunes App Store (yes, it has problems, but from sheer quality of the store and end-to-end interface for browsing, buying and installing, there's nothing better than iTunes) is invaluable, and the payment system extremely simple.
So, the formula that makes the iPhone a success is the exact same formula that you are decrying as being "dickheaded" and "assholish". If Apple had kept things completely open, or even just as open as Windows Mobile, Android, and Pre (don't kid yourself, none of those systems are fully open, they are just more open than iPhone by varying degrees), the iPhone would not be *nearly* as successful nor *nearly* as high a quality of an experience as it is now. Sure, a small percentage more geeks would buy one. Maybe, as some percentage of geeks would also *not* have bought one, but at least on the geek side it would be hard to say which way the balance would move. On the consumer side, however, it's pretty clear that fewer people would buy an iPhone, or at the very least, fewer people would buy their *second* iPhone, after being so frustrated with the first.
Finally, Apple's control helps prevent things like the recent story of the HTC Android phone that ships with the Mariposa bot net client. It also allows Apple to immediately pull apps that are harmful to the users or to the quality of the store itself (Apple has done this already) or in a worst case scenario, remove the app from people's phones altogether (this has never happened, but is reserved for cases of outright spyware, such as the Mariposa client). It's also interesting to note that all of the known exploits in the wild for iPhones have been for jailbroken iPhones, and not those with Apple's built-in security system intact.
I'm not sure that it's _all_ satirizing
Neither am I, which is why I wrote: "the two Alice books abound with satire"
Is the concept of deciding badly based on incomplete data satirized there, or is it just illustrated in a humorous way?
Um, that's a pretty close approximation to the definition of satire. The difference between satire and mere humor (such as in your sig) is that satire generally exposes some negative characteristic in a humorous way. It's similar to the difference between sarcasm and irony. Sarcasm is just irony that is meant to be biting or insulting.
In the case of the Walrus and the Carpenter, (and many of the events in those books) the thing is being satirized by either being absurd (such as the various Queens) or the way a simple-but-rational girl works through something that is often missed by full-grown adults (such as your examples of "fanboy wars or armchair political debates").
thus making any non-economic value of a human life entirely irrelevant.
No, the non-economic value of a human life is never irrelevant.
Ever.
You were equating the need for trained doctors with the need for trained sysadmins. The reason we need highly trained doctors is not due to the economic impact of poorly trained doctors, but because of the human impact of poorly trained doctors.
Your complete inability to disconnect your base emotions from a purely economic discussion is why I called you psychologically immature.
The value of a human life is not a "base" emotion. I can easily talk about the value of a human life in terms of economic output, the value of the elements in the body, the value as a customer or an employee, etc. But one must never forget that these are also humans.
To dissociate the value of a human as a human from a human, is the key ingredient of a psychopath.
Judging intent is a phenomenally difficult task.
Sort of. If you look at it in an absolutist, objective sense, then yes. If you look at it in a subjective, probability sense, it's not that difficult at all. In fact, most people successfully do this many times a day.
To say Charles Dodgson was satirizing his trade can only be speculative
Of course. But that's true of anything done by anyone. Even if they tell you to your face exactly what their intentions are, you can only ever speculate if they are telling the truth. At the end of the day, it always comes down to speculation.
and it's just as easy to speculate that he wasn't.
This is the part you get exactly wrong. It's *not* just as easy, because given that he was a mathematician, and that the two Alice books abound with satire, it's difficult to believe that he wasn't satirizing mathematics when his books have so many examples of such.
Ultimately, and I think you know this already, authors write what they know about. Dodgson knew math, so is it really so odd to think he included mathematical concepts in his story because he thought it would be cool?
Here's a simple litmus test. Does the math seem bolted-on? Or does it integrate with the work as a whole? If it feels bolted-on, then perhaps it's just something he thought would be cool. If it fits the work as a whole, then it's most likely meant to be taken in the same way the rest of the work is, which is very much to be satire.
Like you said, though, you can never be absolutely certain, but you can be certain enough to make a personal judgement.
I'm sorry you're too psychologically immature to recognize economic reality, but that's really not my problem, and hardly makes me a psychopath.
It's not a sign of being "psychologically mature" to hold the notion that human life is a fungible commodity.
A poor person in the slums of Bangalore is economically worth more dead (for his organs) than alive. You state that society places an economic value on everything, including people. Yet for some reason, society has outlawed murder, even if the result is a net monetary profit for society.
Your complete failure to comprehend that a human life is worth more than its economic value to society is why I called you a psychopath.
Society places economic value on everything, and the amount of damage a cracked server farm can potentially do far outstrips the economic value of a human life.
You forgot to start that sentence with, "you might be a psychopath if..."
I think you are severely underestimating the amount of education and training that goes into becoming a doctor. Becoming a sysadmin, even a highly qualified one, is *vastly* simpler.
Practically speaking, it really isn't different.
The surgeon who kills someone might, if the victim's family is very lucky, be assessed damages of a couple million. An idiot with a cracked server farm can easily cause that much damage on the net.
WTF? In one case, a web server has been vandalized. In the other, a person is dead.
If Valve were to spend the money to develop for OSX, they'd never recoup it in profits because there's not a big enough installed base.
Did it ever occur to you, as you wrote this, to wonder how what you wrote could be true while there are plenty of successful Mac OS X games? Do you think Blizzard and ID (for example) run their Mac divisions at a loss?
They don't even have to develop the whole game, as the game itself already exists. All they have to do is port the engine over (or even just wrap it in Cider, although that would not be ideal). Porting an engine over takes a bit of effort, to be sure, but far less effort than it took to create the engine in the first place, or even to develop the story and art and levels, etc, for the game itself.
Then, of course, there's the fact that Steam is coming to Mac (by "fact", I mean there have been teasers from Valve which all point to this, although granted there hasn't been an "official" announcement). With Steam, the #1 hurdle to selling games for the Mac is surpassed, which is to connect the games to the gamers.
You say this as though somehow Apple is doing this because Apple feels threatened by such apps. I don't see exactly how, except that they clutter the store and potentially lead to compatibility issues (due to private API usage).
In other words, it's not that Apple feels directly threatened by such apps, but that the quality of the overall iPhone experience is threatened by such apps. In a sense, what you're saying is right, but *not* in the sense that you are saying it.
for the win.
if you wanted options, you would have gone android... fucksticks.
iPhone has more software than Android, hence more options.
What you really mean is if we wanted specific options (those that aren't available for iPhone, but are for Android), we'd have gone Android. So what it really comes down to is whether one really wants (in this case) a WiFi finder. I certainly won't miss such apps. But you're right, if I did, Android might be a better option.
Uhhh...what great moral failure are we punishing them for? Licensing something we don't think should be licensed?
Absolutely. People always talk about "voting with your wallet". While I don't think it's generally effective, this is exactly what that is.
After all, what's the point in "voting with your wallet" if you can't exercise it to promote behavior you agree with, or punish behavior you disagree with?
It doesn't really matter if it's 10, 1,000,000 or 2. It's additional cost to have staff trained in all possible combinations.
If your IT staff needs to be additionally trained to support two different OS's, you've got bigger problems.
Additionally, training them to be more well-rounded is often seen as a benefit to the organization.
And extra training to even support both IE and Firefox? Really?
Yes, it would be the first time. Microsoft doesn't offer any kind of licensing that requires an organization to use their software exclusively. If they did they would open themselves up to a whole new round of anti-trust litigation.
I don't understand this logic. The idea is that something would open them up to anti-trust issues, therefore they can't do it, or have ever done it in the past...
But they have already been convicted of anti-trust behavior an continue to run afoul of such laws around the world to this day. So clearly trust-related behavior isn't impossible for MS to engage in, in fact, it's specifically something that they *do* behave in.
For the specific allegation you've made, that MS hasn't and doesn't engage in licensing that precludes other OSs, look at the licenses that Dell, HP, etc., have that makes it very hard for them to offer Linux. MS even dictates things like the specs that netbooks must not exceed in order to be allowed to receive discounted licenses for XP!
It probably also makes it a lot easier on the IT support staff. They don't have to deal with a million different browsers, OS's, etc. They can just learn the MS stuff and sit on their asses never learning anything else.
Yeah, a million different browsers and OS's...
Let's see, IE, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, and just 999,992 more!
I realize "million" is meant to mean "a lot", but we're talking less than ten here. I realize there are different versions of each, but a competent IT staff can easily mandate specific versions as officially supported.
My company is becoming an MS only shop, and for good reason.
You could have shortened your post a *lot* had you just followed that with the one word sentence, "Incompetence."
I didn't get that he knows it's impossible. The key thing here that makes it impossible is that drives don't actually write discrete ones and zeroes anymore. They write complex signals that represent a series of bits. Even with a very precise and accurate needle, one could not scan the surface of a drive and find discrete ones and zeroes.
Now, there *might* be a way to alter or specifically design the signals written to look like what a pure one or zero would look like (in the way people tend to imagine they would look), but that would require an extremely clever hack, assuming it's even possible at all.
You do realize the radioactive danger of any given substance is inversely proportional to it's half-life right?
Something like thorium-234, with a half-life of about 24 days, would be much worse, right?
I would be perfectly content to have a brick of depeleted uranium as a paperweight on my desk.
This just so happens to decay into thorium-234, which beings to build up over a fairly short amount of time. Fortunately, it seems like it would reach a fairly stable amount due to thorium's short half-life. Still, it would be prudent to do the math before calling depleted uranium mostly safe.
While, depleted uranium *is* much safer than uranium-235, it does contain U-235, and not at a huge amount less than natural uranium (around 1/3).
I wouldn't worry about a block on my desk either (although I would probably keep a dosimeter nearby, and use a geiger counter from time to time).
I wouldn't, however, want to have any uranium, even depleted uranium, physically near my body (such as, in jewelry) for any extended amount of time. I would also be mindful of the dangers of fire, which could create extremely dangerous smoke (as I'm sure from what you've written, that you are aware of). I would feel really bad were I to return home to find there was a fire and the uranium had harmed my neighbors and any emergency responders.
However, this all sidesteps the issue I brought up, which is the safe storage of radioactive waste. While a little brick would be mostly safe, we're talking about huge amounts. To put it differently, would you feel comfortable storing it in your back yard? (and I mean that literally, as much as would fit, up to say, six feet high, and if you don't have a back yard, let's pretend)
No, a meltdown is still possible ... The safeguard in case of meltdown is the containment building, which consists of steel and concrete barriers. Chernobyl did not have such a barrier.
So, meltdown is still possible. I'm not sure what good steel and concrete barriers provide. I suspect they merely buy time, as opposed to being an actual long-term containment device?
Current Generation III designs also usually store emergency cooling water in tanks above the reactor, so in an emergency you just open a valve, instead of having to power mechanical pumps to cool the core. The number of parts is reduced to decrease the chance of system failure. Control systems have also been automated and simplified so operator error is less likely.
Still, I can definitely foresee a situation where a private business will not necessarily keep those systems in working order without strict government oversight.
Like I've already said more than once, I'm quite confident that nuclear power *can* be done safely, I just don't trust private enterprise to do it.
Additionally, in the case of meltdown, a water tank doesn't help (perhaps it can be designed to stop a meltdown by creating an explosion, but that seems like a bad Plan B). It would just be useful in the case of the main water supply being limited for some reason. The gravity tank would really just buy time to shut down the plant. I assume there are safeguards again, but what if the rods become stuck?
My point isn't to say, "aha! there's something that can still happen, therefore no nukes ever!", but to point out that these risks still exist, as most pro-nukers seem to believe that nuclear power is completely safe, or in your case, that it's almost completely safe.
As for long term low level emissions, coal power plants emit lots of radioactive material all the time, unfiltered, and no one bothers about it. Thorium, uranium, etc.
I never said I was worried about low-level radiation leakage. In fact, I made it pretty clear that below a certain amount it's really not a big deal at all.
Bringing up coal plants is a bit of a red herring. One could say that Safeway delivers lots of radioactive material all the time, since everything organic in the store contains radioactive elements. What would be more helpful would be to list the dosage rate near the plant, and the overall effect to the background radiation in the area. I assume coal doesn't cause enough to be an actual concern (except to those that cower in the corner simply upon hearing the word "radiation"). If it is, it would cause me to be against coal more than it would be to make me more favorable towards nuclear.
Did you ever wonder why, if nuclear waste storage is such a problem, even with Yucca Mountain not being allowed as a final storage place we are not up to our ears in waste already?
Come on, this is a silly thing to bring up. You should have deduced by now I'm not a nuclear chicken little. I know that the total volume of radioactive waste is not a vast sea. My concern isn't about the amount--I know it can't be more than the environment can handle, after all, *that's* where it came from in the first place! (I also know that it's possible for the waste to be *more* radioactive than the original fuel was, but I assume this isn't a significant problem) The problem is both the concentration, and the fact that it has to be managed for billions of years.
As for billions of years waste storage, Google "oklo nuclear reactor".
I'm well aware of natural nuclear reactors. These aren't located near major metropolitan areas of the US. If they were, this would not make me want to have *more* nuclear reactors.
What I don't understand, however, is how this addresses the issue of billions of years. I suppose you could be meaning that such a reactor would consume the fuel quicker than the half
Had any other company in the world released this you wouldn't have commented the way you did.
Correct, as Microsoft is the only high profile tech company that engages in such behavior time and time again. It's in the company's DNA.
IBM used to act in the same way, so I suppose were we to transport ourselves to the 60s, I'd respond similarly to them. But were in the 10s now, and MS has been the smoke-and-mirrors king for the past 30 years.
I also give MS kudos for the things they get right, so don't try to paint me as some sort of anti-MS troll. If you read my post through at least once, you'll notice I mention how cool the tech itself actually is (same for surface). What I'm criticizing them for is for not actually having a product where this is in use. This tech demo is clearly MS trying to get people to stop using Google, and switch to Bing. I don't hold that against them. What I hold against them is that they're pulling the same trick, yet again.
So now people remember seeing this cool video, and they forget that it's not a real product, so when Google comes out with an actual product, some jackass like yourself comes out with, "this Google product sucks, that MS thing that I saw in a video for a product that doesn't even exist is way better!"
On the other hand, if MS actually *does* get cameras everywhere (reasonably speaking), then I'll definitely agree with you, that theirs is a way more impressive product. But until then, I'm not stupid enough to believe that somehow this time MS is actually going to follow through. They've used up all their good will. From now on it's "show me the goods or STFU".
As for releasing tech demos, this was done right through their current map beta, which anyone can use. It's not vaporware.
Then surely you have a URL to a live camera feed like that in the TED talk?
I'm not convinced you've thought about this very hard. I won't hold it against you, because nobody, least of all government schools, will teach you this stuff.
Having an opinion different from yours is not a sign of not thinking something through.
Your simpleminded Ayn Randian view of Capitalism vs Socialism is fundamentally delusional. You say things like, "There is no idelogical difference between socialism and communism. Both words mean: the state is absolute, and any individual can and will be made to sacrifice for the "good" of others." and "Socialism will always suppress the best a man has to offer because he will be forced act [or not act] contrary to his own wishes."
Such thoughts are easily disproven. You have this idea of Socialism as being where the state will absolutely tell you everything you can ever do, and that's simply not true. You have the notion that Capitalism means you are free to do anything you are physically and mentally capable of. This is simply not true either.
Additionally, every society that has ever existed has had both capitalistic and socialistic aspects. Simply being able to barter your goods and services, or being able to whittle a piece of wood for your own enjoyment, is Capitalism, and having any sort of government whatsoever is Socialism.
The intelligent society would be one where the two forces are used to best serve the people.
Your simplistic view is a result of not being able to hold two diametrically opposed views at the same time. Everything is either all out black, or all out white, and grey is a failure.
Socialism is great. Capitalism is great. Pure Socialism or pure Capitalism are both evil, although if I had to pick one to be pure, I'd most definitely pick Capitalism (if I were rich) or Socialism (if I were poor). Fortunately, I'm not an imbecile, and I can choose both in varying measures for varying things.
Oh, and to address your notion that Socialism and Communism are the same thing, the difference is that in Communism, everything is done for the state. In Socialism, everything is down for the people. The formal definitions are that the state owns/controls the means of production (Communism) or the people own/control the means of production (Socialism).
In Capitalism, those with capital own/control the means of production, but looking a it from the opposite direction, everything done is done for those with capital. If you don't have capital, Capitalism sucks.
You rail against public schools, but I can promise you one thing. In a purely Capitalistic society, education would be much worse unless you were rich. It's only by Socialism that everyone in America has access to school, and is able to, if they can, learn.
Which makes the google demo look like something from 1996 in comparison. (Skip ahead to the 4:20 mark for some jaw-dropping live video overlaid on top of 3D interior shots of pike place market, generated from user pics.
The video you are referring to is a demo that required a guy with a camera to stream live for the presentation. Google's system actually works right now.
MS is superb at giving tech demos. They are even better at timing them to most strongly attack their opponents. But what they are awful at is delivering. Until MS gets enough cameras placed everywhere so that you can reasonably expect, even if primarily only in metropolitan areas, that they will have a camera view you can access, it's just going to be a cool gimmick that will have a camera on the Eiffel Tower, and one at Times Square, and maybe three in Seattle.
As of right now, they don't even have *one* set up anywhere.
It's fairly impressive, however, the way MS has this down to an art. They show this cool tech off, and everyone remembers how cool it is, and now existing products have to compete against an imaginary MS product that doesn't even exist and will most likely not exist any time soon.
They tried this with Surface when the iPhone debuted. That backfired, but even so, Suface, the demo, is damned cool. Surface, the reality, is a gimmick.