Twitchy mouse button. Didn't seem important to fix, sorry if omitting a preposition offended you.
Unwarrantedly condescending response to my question. Your reply was "fact?", not "In fact?", which changes the meaning. I was not offended, I just wondered why you did that, and what your rhetorical intention was (since your reply also kept with the omission).
Anyway, it's forgotten.
I thought the claim was it would encourage kids to become scientists. But as you just said, here they are supporting roles, subordinate to the muscle headed hero. It's like the cliched American high school hierarchy: the jocks are the heroes, they get the accolades. The geeks help them do their homework. You think kids to aspire to be flunkies?
I never said "supporting roles", I said "prominent roles". That's what's important. It does't matter if they are the main protagonist or not. What matters is children seeing scientists, seeing them in a good light, and seeing them presented in a way that inspires a sense of wonder.
I think Avatar does all these things.
The assertion was that it was a good movie to promote science to kids. While you can find some aspects to support that, it's quite odd to me to think that was anything but a very minor part of the story. The message of the film is that violence and killing solves problems, not science. The scientists march behind the warriors.
the assertion was *never* that science was a major part of the story. It was that some of the children seeing the movie will be inspired to want to become scientists.
As far as the message you have interpreted from the film, it was that violence and killing creates problems, and when faced with that, one must fight back. Did the protagonist initiate hostilities against the private corporate military? No. However, when people are engaged in violence and killing you, one time-tested solution is to use violence and killing back at them until they stop.
True it's hard to think of any films that show science in a realistic and positive light. Off the top of my head, only some real-life-based films, like Apollo 13 and Gorillas in the Mist comes to mind (and I think the character Weaver played in that informed the one she had in Avatar). The Day After Tomorrow had some courageous scientists, who did what looked like real science (of course much of it was wildly unlikely).
And to varying extents, they all promote science to children. But in no way is it required for the science to be realistic. Even shows like Star Trek promote science, even if it's usually the phaser banks and photon torpedos that save the day, and much of the science is wildly fantastic.
The science does not have to be accurate. The scientists do not need to be the stars, nor do they need to be the ones that save the day. All that has to happen is children seeing scientists and seeing them presented in a positive light. That's all it takes to make a child think, "I want to be a scientist!"
If you buy an Android and want to take security seriously, you stick to known websites to get your apps from, preferably just the Android Store. You simply don't go to warez.r.us.cn and load pirated/cracked apps. Stick to known good sites, and you're as secure as iOS.
If you buy an iOS device and want to load cracked apps, jailbreak it. Jailbreak it, and you're as insecure as everyone else.
Sure, if you go out of your way to make iOS insecure, and go out of your way to be secure on Android, you can be safer on Android.
But in their default states, and their intended usage patterns, iOS is more secure than Android.
The most dangerous insecurity is the illusion of security,
It is not an illusion. There have been no trojans/viruses/worms for non-jailbroken iOS devices. There have been some for jailbroken iOS devices and for Android phones.
People have been making the same claim about Mac OS X for a decade now, yet the deluge of OS X malware has failed to materialize. And iOS is in a better position than Mac OS X security-wise.
which is why one-liners like "or you can buy an iOS device" are dangerously misleading, because it implies that iOS is somehow invulnerable.
It does no such thing, because as you noted, no system is invulnerable. Nobody claims malware is impossible on iOS. What is claimed is that this is a problem that exists for Android and does not exist for iOS. Not that it's impossible, just that it doesn't exist.
It's like if someone mentions how dangerous it is in Mexico right now, with all the killings. A reply of "move to X" doesn't imply murder is impossible in X, just that the situation is better in X than in Mexico.
The bigger question is, how long until video calling comes to Skype on Android? There are many more Android devices out there with forward facing cameras, so video Skype for Android would be a big bump for Skype. They dragged their heels heavily bringing Skype to the Samsung Galaxy S, which is the best Android device and highest selling one to date, which to me indicates that they don't know which side their bread is buttered on.
iOS is still the dominant app phone platform. It's absolutely no surprise that this feature is enabled for iOS before being rolled out for Android.
I don't understand your last sentence. Is/was Skype for Android available, but for only some handsets? If we are to break it down to individual devices, then iOS is even more the obvious choice for primary development.
Nobody said it was. In your reply, you make the points that absolutely nothing is invulnerable, and that iOS is less vulnerable than Android, which supports, not refutes, the OP.
It's strange that whenever there are Android malware stories, or jailbroken iOS malware stories, that there are always posts saying that "iOS has vulnerabilities too, and all systems are insecure". Yet somehow, every single time it's not unhacked-iOS that gets the malware.
Inherently, Android is less secure than iOS. This is due to deliberate choices by both Apple and Google. It's time for the geeks to be honest about it and admit this fact. iOS is more locked down, more secure, easier to use, simpler to develop for and has a greater variety of apps. Android is more open, easier to hack (in the good way), less secure, and more kludgey.
I think you're right. Leaving such posts unchallenged doesn't seem very responsible. I'd hate to have someone mistake such idiocy for a rational or reasonable point of view.
fact, the scientists are the heroes. Avatar strikes me as an excellent movie for promoting science to children.
fact????
"In fact", actually. Why the selective quoting?
The soldier and the native warriors are the heroes. They save the day.
Fighting on the side of the scientists and the Pandorans, against the side of the corporations and the private military.
They get the girls. It's a terrible movie to promote any science
That's because you don't understand what's being claimed here. It's not that the movie is primarily about scientists doing science, and triumphing with nothing but science. It's a movie that has scientists in prominent roles, that portrays science as both good and with a sense of wonder. It doesn't matter that the main character is a mercenary, because children who see the movie will see scientists.
except if you're inspired to go into CGI animation. It's nothing but eye-candy. The more I think about the story, the more queasy I get.
I'm not sure what you have against eye-candy, but on the topic at hand, scientists were portrayed as major characters and in a good light. From the point of view of the promotion of science to children, it was done quite well.
The thing you are missing is the proper perspective. I'm going to assume you know science up and down. You have taken plenty of math classes, know what equations like PV=nRT mean, etc. Children don't. They probably know some dinosaur names and some planet names, and basic arithmetic. If you want to get them excited about science, you don't do it in the same way you get an adult excited about science.
It's absolutely no surprise that there are adults here that aren't inspired by Avatar. What is surprising is that they seem to think that children won't be.
The few pieces of plausible fiction (cold sleep, avatars, aliens, and mechs) are plot devices, not plot points. All of the actual plot is implausible speculative fantasy.
This is absolutely irrelevant to the point being presented, which is that kids will see the scientists in the movie, and some of those kids will be inspired by them. These kids presumably haven't acquired the same taste for hard science fiction that you have, so they don't immediately eschew the idea of there being science involved in a movie like Avatar.
In fact, the scientists are the heroes. Avatar strikes me as an excellent movie for promoting science to children.
Is this really how people debate on the internet these days? Why sprinkle an otherwise reasonable rebuttal with loads of insults?
"Debate" implies two or more reasonably worthwhile points of view. This wasn't a debate, it was someone asserting dogma as reality, ignoring even the most simple contradictory evidence. You can't debate someone like that.
It's like having a debate whether air really exists. The only proper response is to point out exactly why it does, and if the person persists, either shut up, or completely ridicule their position.
I chose not to shut up, and I probably chose poorly.
*sigh* governments, like private sector companies, do the bare minimum that will keep their clients from leaving (or revolting for public companies).
That is true of neither sector. Both sectors are made of people, and some people will do the bare minimum they can get away with. Some people do even less than that. But there are plenty of people who will do much more than the bare minimum.
As usual, you are making an assertion based on a dogmatic tenet that is easily disproved.
Obviously. So the fact that sometimes the government actually does something does not quite contradict the fact that public companies do LESS than private companies.
No, but things like:
- NASA landing on the Moon. - The USPS delivering mail to the door, for 44 cents, usually within two days, 6 days a week. - Schools providing an education to all children - Fire departments putting out any home - Libraries lending books - Roads being well maintained and expanded - The Internet
Are all examples of the public sector doing MORE than private companies. Another dogmatic assumption of your is that private sector always outperforms the public sector. How do you reconcile this with reality without breaking something in your mind?
Replacing a private sector utility with a public company is a loss for everyone, except of course, for the politicians running it.
Dogmatic assertion. What's your reasoning?
It's bad for their clients. It's bad for everybody else, because of increased taxation.
Wait, it's bad because people have to pay for it? First off, that has no bearing on whether it's good or bad. But also, I wonder how you think private sector businesses run. They don't require payment?
It's even bad for government, increased liability and a bigger bureaucracy guaranteeing less will happen when they actually want to change something.
Except for the millions of things daily that completely contradict this.
Here's what sort of service you get from government monopolies : AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and now Government Motors... those are govt services. Not exactly a model of how things should be done, don't you agree ?
"Government Motors"? I guess I should have realized by now, but you are a complete idiot.
As for things like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, they are monopolies not simply due to government fiat, but due to the very nature of their services. Cables throughout cities, and radio waves, are all things that must be granted some level of exclusivity. Otherwise, how do you place cable lines without a goverment-granted right of way? How is a wireless carrier supposed to operate if they do not have exclusive license to a frequency range within a geographical area?
The problem with those companies stems primarily from lack of regulation. This lack is based on the rational desire of dishonorable men who lobby government to make rules that favor them. The government does this in no small part due to the support of dupes like yourself who have been bamboozled into thinking that you are promoting liberty, when all you are doing is chipping away at the very institutions that protect liberty. In nations that are far more rational, and far more regulated, you'll find that wireless service and internet/cable, tend to far exceed what we find here.
In other words, your dogma leads to lower quality of service, and then you use that lower quality of service as "proof" that your dogma is correct! It's insane.
The only reason we have any public companies at all, is the greed and lust for power of individuals.
Aside from the fact that this is completely untrue, I'm wondering how you think a lot of private companies come to be?
That they have a number of deluded fanboys (like you
And the government is neither efficient, nor does it know or want to improve public well-being. Nobody does (and if somebody claims to, you'd do well to steer far clear of them).
And that, kind sir, is why you are full of shit.
If you dislike the monopoly you have now, and you're thinking it couldn't possibly be worse, the government will find new and creative ways to surprise you.
Aside from the millions of examples that occur every day to the contrary, that is.
Please, tell me how you reconcile reality with your cynical worldview? Is every example of government doing something useful and beneficial completely invisible to you? Every time you drive down a road, drink safe and readily accessible water, see a house fire put out before it can spread through a neighborhood, see a teacher who helps a student excel, have a letter travel across the continent in two days for 44 cents... what exactly is it that flows through your mind? Do you have a filter that just completely blanks it out?
If not, how do you reconcile that with your post above?
Your whole argument is completely and 100% dependent upon the existence of a huge group of people that are entirely beyond self-interest, and that we can hire to run the government.
That's such an absurd straw man that you should be ashamed for successfully typing it out without realizing how inane it is.
The proof of the extraordinary absurdity of your straw man is the millions of counter examples that occur every single day. If your straw man were true, then every success would mean that there was at least one person in government who is "entirely beyond self-interest". Since I contend no such person exists (and I can only assume you agree with me on this at least), then clearly my argument is not "completely and 100% dependent upon the existence" of not even a "huge group of such people", but even just one.
None exist, yet government both can and does promote the welfare of society. Clearly one of us is fantastically wrong here, but given your blank-out filter, I can only assume you will be unable to realize that the person in question is you.
What was the worst thing about California, it was regulation that brought about the shortages that caused the price spike. Retail prices were fixed. Fuel costs went up. Unprofitable generation went offline for for repairs, maintenance, or upgrades, or simply shut down.
This was followed by a mild heat wave. The result was rolling blackouts as the cheap efficient sources were inadequate. New generation and transmission was not built due to lack of profit.
That sounds like an argument for government involvement, not against. If power generation and transmission is a responsibility assumed by the government, then the government can do things a private corporation is loathe to do. It can build out capabilities ahead of, and in excess of, present demand, and it can run at a loss over periods of time as necessary.
Also, the recall era brown-outs were deliberate political ploys intended to raise public ire sufficient to support a recall of Governor Davis. Had the private utilities ran at a loss (perhaps with public subsidies, like we currently do with farms in the US, for the exact same type of reason), the brown outs would have been significantly less widespread.
The problem isn't that private corporations are efficient, the problem is that they are far too good at being efficient and don't know when efficiency should give way to the service of the public well being.
No, the real free market solution (a.k.a. the ones politicians would never propose) is that you get a whole bunch of power companies competing on the same grid,
That's not really feasible. Are you expecting small scale coal and nuclear plants popping up all over the place? Does that even sound like a good thing without regulation? Sure, they can potentially do it cheaper, if they have no safety or pollution regulations to contend with. And it's unclear how you can privately compete with something like a dam. Do you just let anyone put up their own dam?
Some things naturally tend towards monopolies. Power is one of them. Some things are so dangerous (nuclear) or destructive to the local environment (coal plants) that regulation is critical.
attempting to be a lower cost than one another, and give consumers a choice of who to pay for their power.
And that's the problem right there. Aside from some minimal inherent inefficiency, there are some costs involved in a regulated system like the power grid that goes to making sure power is produced in a way that is not unduly detrimental to the environment, to the people that live around the plants, and in a design that provides consistent power.
A private system would have lower up-front prices, but would do so at the costs of our environment and the health of some of us. Also, those prices would be lower because the grid would be of lower reliability. Some bean-counter somewhere would do the calculus and find a point where increasing reliability no longer increases profits. It's sort of the "Ford Pinto" calculation. If the car will make more money than it will cost in wrongful death suits, someone will decide to ship a car that never should have seen the light of day. In terms of power transmission, outages during peak usages (i.e., winter heating and summer cooling) will be deemed acceptable, because the increased cost to fortify the grid and to allow for short periods of significantly greater power generation, will not be deemed reasonable due to limited increased revenue. This will lead to the deaths of people during hot and cold times.
Say what you will about a government monopoly, but if done properly, it provides a service that serves the needs of the people. If done what some people call "right", the private sector often does the exact opposite.
You don't regulate the price directly, or directly control the companies providing the power; that's a recipe for disaster. Granting a monopoly, whether government or private, is going to cause bloat and high prices, then eventual failure of the system.
What a strange thing to say. Radio, TV and cell service is based on a private monopoly, and has not lead to "bloat and high prices, then eventual failure of the system". Same is true for things like roads, armies, fire departments, police stations, schools, libraries, sewer, water, power, and many other things. The idea that monopolies and/or government intervention inevitably leads to failure is a dogmatic tenet that is contradicted a million times a day, but because it's taken as an axiom by far too many people in the US (in most other civilized nations, the number of people who hold this dogma is thankfully more manageable), we end up with absurd public discussions, like, "should we trust essential services, like power, fire, police, etc., to the private sector?"
The NT Kernel might be, even after all this time slapping whatever each release thinks is a useful feature into it, but who cares about that. I think I can guarantee Office will not run on ARM, so its pretty much dead already.
Microsoft has two cash cows, Windows and Office. If they are going to take the time to port Windows to a platform, it would be strange for them to not also port Office. I have no idea how you can "guarantee" that Office won't run on ARM.
I've never owned as ARM computer (just C=6502, 68000-60, PowerPC, x86, MIPS, and EE).
Why do you think that matters? There will always be someone how hasn't owned some particular thing, yet that thing can be popular.
Why do you think ARM will be a dominant brand in the coming years
It already is. iPhone, iPod touch, iPad, Android...
These devices are projected to outsell traditional PCs in the near future. It's likely that ARM outsells AMD already, and possibly even Intel. Even of not, ARM is already a dominant brand.
I have a Samsung moment phone it sucks. So did my last Samsung (non-smart) phone. I can keep my apps and move to an HTC or Motorola phone.
You are still "locked" into Android. You can't just buy an iPhone or a Windows 7 phone, or a PalmOS tablet, etc.
My sister and her husband have Windows Mobile phones. My sister's was horrible, her husbands was great. She switched over, no loss.
Same thing.
Now, one of my friends has an iPhone. He hates it, but has a lot of apps for it. He doesn't want to re-buy similar apps on another phone. So he has to stick with the iPhone, or re-buy the apps.
I see. So, if you buy an iPhone 3G and it sucks, there's no other iOS phones out there? You can't buy an iPhone 3GS, or an iPhone 4, or an iPod touch, or next year's iPhone?
But I put "locked" in quotes above, because you aren't locked into shit. You just rebuy your apps. It's strange to buy so many apps for a phone that someone "hates" that switching platforms is a huge deal. I can tell you with absolute certainty that if Android (or some other mobile OS) were to be so great, and iOS so bad, I would switch. It's absurd to live with a system you hate just because of ~$100 worth of apps. The phone itself costs more than that!
But it's just like going from tape to CD, or VHS to DVD, PS2 to Xbox 360, or Windows to Mac... You rebuy your music/movies/games/programs. The only "lock in" is in your mind.
The lock-in happens with the license, not the the original platform of development.
Please cite where in the license for buying a Mac or iPod or iPhone or anything else Apple, that you are then locked into Apple's products. That was the original claim: "and if you do end up getting one [iPhone/iPad], and deciding to leave, you are fairly well locked in."
Chances are, if you "buy a Linux program" you will get the program's source as part of the deal.
I'm sure Oracle and IBM just give you their source code when you buy their software, and games makers just give out their source code when you buy the Humble Indie Bundle...
That enables you to port the program to other platforms or hire someone to do so.
Which is what I meant when I said "theoretically, not practically". Of the people buying iPhones, the percentage of those that even can port a program is miniscule. But the scenario is exactly the same with open source iOS apps as it is with open source Linux programs. If you want to port them to Android, you can!
The alternative is that you do not get the source, and the only way to port to another platform (legally) is to beg the entity to which you are now shackled.
Which is absolutely no different on Linux than it is on iOS than it is on Windows than it is on any other platform.
Actually Linux (and similar copylefted OSes and libraries) doesn't qualify as part of this because you can legally uproot support provided you retain copyleft.
Theoretically, but not practically. If you buy a Linux program, you are "locked in" to Linux, at least as much as if you buy an iOS app or a Windows program it ties you to those systems. Even open source programs are locked in until they are ported, just like any other system. If you download VLC or Battle For Wesnoth for the iPhone, you are in the exact same boat.
That's a wholly nonsensical article. When you run software, you make a copy as affected by copyright law. Mac users get a license to run Mac OS X on a Mac. The notion that every Mac user is in violation of the DMCA is ludicrous. How you came to the conclusion you did is beyond me.
Does knowing this "subtle but important" distinction somehow make the unavailable networks available? Because if it doesn't, I don't see how it's particularly important here.
That's what u think. Have you read Apple's EULA? It says..."Apple can and will decide what you can and will use on anything you buy from Apple. And oh yeah BTW, Jailbreaking is NOT legal or cool. The Black Turtlenecked Lord of the Underworld has spoken.... So let it be written, so let it be done"
Um, no. It doesn't. And I don't mean "in those words", I mean, it doesn't say those things at all, regardless of phrasing.
you mean Apple isn't as open as they always envisioned they were?
I'd be interested to know of how many major companies you can name that own, maintain, or are very active in as many open source projects as Apple is. While you're at it, could you name the major software maker tends to support open file and interface standards as much as Apple does.
This has nothing to do with controlling what developers do with the money they make from their apps and everything to do with the promises made as part of the sale of the app. If the author just donated to Wikileaks, that's one thing. But if he ties those donations to the app itself, it becomes something else entirely.
This "Apple is a business" argument is stupid. That's like saying, "The mafia is a business". Yes, it's true. But the argument doesn't address the behavior. As a society, we don't allow mafia type businesses with their murder and extortion.
Murder and extortion are illegal and immoral activities. Apple's behavior is neither.
We don't have to allow Apple's closed garden.
Yes, we do, because it's Apple's garden to do with as they wish. It's only if it becomes illegal or immoral that the issue of whether "we have to allow it" comes into play.
Why people think that because an organization is a "business" that they should be free from moral constraints, is beyond me.
This I agree with, but I don't see how it applies here.
Slashdot Mirror
Twitchy mouse button. Didn't seem important to fix, sorry if omitting a preposition offended you.
Unwarrantedly condescending response to my question. Your reply was "fact?", not "In fact?", which changes the meaning. I was not offended, I just wondered why you did that, and what your rhetorical intention was (since your reply also kept with the omission).
Anyway, it's forgotten.
I thought the claim was it would encourage kids to become scientists. But as you just said, here they are supporting roles, subordinate to the muscle headed hero. It's like the cliched American high school hierarchy: the jocks are the heroes, they get the accolades. The geeks help them do their homework. You think kids to aspire to be flunkies?
I never said "supporting roles", I said "prominent roles". That's what's important. It does't matter if they are the main protagonist or not. What matters is children seeing scientists, seeing them in a good light, and seeing them presented in a way that inspires a sense of wonder.
I think Avatar does all these things.
The assertion was that it was a good movie to promote science to kids. While you can find some aspects to support that, it's quite odd to me to think that was anything but a very minor part of the story. The message of the film is that violence and killing solves problems, not science. The scientists march behind the warriors.
the assertion was *never* that science was a major part of the story. It was that some of the children seeing the movie will be inspired to want to become scientists.
As far as the message you have interpreted from the film, it was that violence and killing creates problems, and when faced with that, one must fight back. Did the protagonist initiate hostilities against the private corporate military? No. However, when people are engaged in violence and killing you, one time-tested solution is to use violence and killing back at them until they stop.
True it's hard to think of any films that show science in a realistic and positive light. Off the top of my head, only some real-life-based films, like Apollo 13 and
Gorillas in the Mist comes to mind (and I think the character Weaver played in that informed the one she had in Avatar). The Day After Tomorrow had some courageous scientists, who did what looked like real science (of course much of it was wildly unlikely).
And to varying extents, they all promote science to children. But in no way is it required for the science to be realistic. Even shows like Star Trek promote science, even if it's usually the phaser banks and photon torpedos that save the day, and much of the science is wildly fantastic.
The science does not have to be accurate. The scientists do not need to be the stars, nor do they need to be the ones that save the day. All that has to happen is children seeing scientists and seeing them presented in a positive light. That's all it takes to make a child think, "I want to be a scientist!"
It's not trolling, it's having little patience with complete idiocy.
On the other hand, one must wonder, how do you justify your trolling?
If you buy an Android and want to take security seriously, you stick to known websites to get your apps from, preferably just the Android Store. You simply don't go to warez.r.us.cn and load pirated/cracked apps. Stick to known good sites, and you're as secure as iOS.
If you buy an iOS device and want to load cracked apps, jailbreak it. Jailbreak it, and you're as insecure as everyone else.
Sure, if you go out of your way to make iOS insecure, and go out of your way to be secure on Android, you can be safer on Android.
But in their default states, and their intended usage patterns, iOS is more secure than Android.
The most dangerous insecurity is the illusion of security,
It is not an illusion. There have been no trojans/viruses/worms for non-jailbroken iOS devices. There have been some for jailbroken iOS devices and for Android phones.
People have been making the same claim about Mac OS X for a decade now, yet the deluge of OS X malware has failed to materialize. And iOS is in a better position than Mac OS X security-wise.
which is why one-liners like "or you can buy an iOS device" are dangerously misleading, because it implies that iOS is somehow invulnerable.
It does no such thing, because as you noted, no system is invulnerable. Nobody claims malware is impossible on iOS. What is claimed is that this is a problem that exists for Android and does not exist for iOS. Not that it's impossible, just that it doesn't exist.
It's like if someone mentions how dangerous it is in Mexico right now, with all the killings. A reply of "move to X" doesn't imply murder is impossible in X, just that the situation is better in X than in Mexico.
Because any time an app appears on iOS that is compelling, someone on Slashdot is required to ask that question. Today's winner was morgan_greywolf.
The bigger question is, how long until video calling comes to Skype on Android? There are many more Android devices out there with forward facing cameras, so video Skype for Android would be a big bump for Skype. They dragged their heels heavily bringing Skype to the Samsung Galaxy S, which is the best Android device and highest selling one to date, which to me indicates that they don't know which side their bread is buttered on.
iOS is still the dominant app phone platform. It's absolutely no surprise that this feature is enabled for iOS before being rolled out for Android.
I don't understand your last sentence. Is/was Skype for Android available, but for only some handsets? If we are to break it down to individual devices, then iOS is even more the obvious choice for primary development.
iOS is not invulnerable.
Nobody said it was. In your reply, you make the points that absolutely nothing is invulnerable, and that iOS is less vulnerable than Android, which supports, not refutes, the OP.
It's strange that whenever there are Android malware stories, or jailbroken iOS malware stories, that there are always posts saying that "iOS has vulnerabilities too, and all systems are insecure". Yet somehow, every single time it's not unhacked-iOS that gets the malware.
Inherently, Android is less secure than iOS. This is due to deliberate choices by both Apple and Google. It's time for the geeks to be honest about it and admit this fact. iOS is more locked down, more secure, easier to use, simpler to develop for and has a greater variety of apps. Android is more open, easier to hack (in the good way), less secure, and more kludgey.
There's no "probably" about it.
I think you're right. Leaving such posts unchallenged doesn't seem very responsible. I'd hate to have someone mistake such idiocy for a rational or reasonable point of view.
I chose not to shut up, and I probably chose poorly.
As you have been doing for years now.
Well, there have been ultra-conservative jackasses for far longer. Silence doesn't strike me as the correct response to such jackassery.
fact, the scientists are the heroes. Avatar strikes me as an excellent movie for promoting science to children.
fact????
"In fact", actually. Why the selective quoting?
The soldier and the native warriors are the heroes. They save the day.
Fighting on the side of the scientists and the Pandorans, against the side of the corporations and the private military.
They get the girls. It's a terrible movie to promote any science
That's because you don't understand what's being claimed here. It's not that the movie is primarily about scientists doing science, and triumphing with nothing but science. It's a movie that has scientists in prominent roles, that portrays science as both good and with a sense of wonder. It doesn't matter that the main character is a mercenary, because children who see the movie will see scientists.
except if you're inspired to go into CGI animation. It's nothing but eye-candy. The more I think about the story, the more queasy I get.
I'm not sure what you have against eye-candy, but on the topic at hand, scientists were portrayed as major characters and in a good light. From the point of view of the promotion of science to children, it was done quite well.
The thing you are missing is the proper perspective. I'm going to assume you know science up and down. You have taken plenty of math classes, know what equations like PV=nRT mean, etc. Children don't. They probably know some dinosaur names and some planet names, and basic arithmetic. If you want to get them excited about science, you don't do it in the same way you get an adult excited about science.
It's absolutely no surprise that there are adults here that aren't inspired by Avatar. What is surprising is that they seem to think that children won't be.
The few pieces of plausible fiction (cold sleep, avatars, aliens, and mechs) are plot devices, not plot points. All of the actual plot is implausible speculative fantasy.
This is absolutely irrelevant to the point being presented, which is that kids will see the scientists in the movie, and some of those kids will be inspired by them. These kids presumably haven't acquired the same taste for hard science fiction that you have, so they don't immediately eschew the idea of there being science involved in a movie like Avatar.
In fact, the scientists are the heroes. Avatar strikes me as an excellent movie for promoting science to children.
Is this really how people debate on the internet these days? Why sprinkle an otherwise reasonable rebuttal with loads of insults?
"Debate" implies two or more reasonably worthwhile points of view. This wasn't a debate, it was someone asserting dogma as reality, ignoring even the most simple contradictory evidence. You can't debate someone like that.
It's like having a debate whether air really exists. The only proper response is to point out exactly why it does, and if the person persists, either shut up, or completely ridicule their position.
I chose not to shut up, and I probably chose poorly.
*sigh* governments, like private sector companies, do the bare minimum that will keep their clients from leaving (or revolting for public companies).
That is true of neither sector. Both sectors are made of people, and some people will do the bare minimum they can get away with. Some people do even less than that. But there are plenty of people who will do much more than the bare minimum.
As usual, you are making an assertion based on a dogmatic tenet that is easily disproved.
Obviously. So the fact that sometimes the government actually does something does not quite contradict the fact that public companies do LESS than private companies.
No, but things like:
- NASA landing on the Moon.
- The USPS delivering mail to the door, for 44 cents, usually within two days, 6 days a week.
- Schools providing an education to all children
- Fire departments putting out any home
- Libraries lending books
- Roads being well maintained and expanded
- The Internet
Are all examples of the public sector doing MORE than private companies. Another dogmatic assumption of your is that private sector always outperforms the public sector. How do you reconcile this with reality without breaking something in your mind?
Replacing a private sector utility with a public company is a loss for everyone, except of course, for the politicians running it.
Dogmatic assertion. What's your reasoning?
It's bad for their clients. It's bad for everybody else, because of increased taxation.
Wait, it's bad because people have to pay for it? First off, that has no bearing on whether it's good or bad. But also, I wonder how you think private sector businesses run. They don't require payment?
It's even bad for government, increased liability and a bigger bureaucracy guaranteeing less will happen when they actually want to change something.
Except for the millions of things daily that completely contradict this.
Here's what sort of service you get from government monopolies : AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and now Government Motors ... those are govt services. Not exactly a model of how things should be done, don't you agree ?
"Government Motors"? I guess I should have realized by now, but you are a complete idiot.
As for things like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, they are monopolies not simply due to government fiat, but due to the very nature of their services. Cables throughout cities, and radio waves, are all things that must be granted some level of exclusivity. Otherwise, how do you place cable lines without a goverment-granted right of way? How is a wireless carrier supposed to operate if they do not have exclusive license to a frequency range within a geographical area?
The problem with those companies stems primarily from lack of regulation. This lack is based on the rational desire of dishonorable men who lobby government to make rules that favor them. The government does this in no small part due to the support of dupes like yourself who have been bamboozled into thinking that you are promoting liberty, when all you are doing is chipping away at the very institutions that protect liberty. In nations that are far more rational, and far more regulated, you'll find that wireless service and internet/cable, tend to far exceed what we find here.
In other words, your dogma leads to lower quality of service, and then you use that lower quality of service as "proof" that your dogma is correct! It's insane.
The only reason we have any public companies at all, is the greed and lust for power of individuals.
Aside from the fact that this is completely untrue, I'm wondering how you think a lot of private companies come to be?
That they have a number of deluded fanboys (like you
And the government is neither efficient, nor does it know or want to improve public well-being. Nobody does (and if somebody claims to, you'd do well to steer far clear of them).
And that, kind sir, is why you are full of shit.
If you dislike the monopoly you have now, and you're thinking it couldn't possibly be worse, the government will find new and creative ways to surprise you.
Aside from the millions of examples that occur every day to the contrary, that is.
Please, tell me how you reconcile reality with your cynical worldview? Is every example of government doing something useful and beneficial completely invisible to you? Every time you drive down a road, drink safe and readily accessible water, see a house fire put out before it can spread through a neighborhood, see a teacher who helps a student excel, have a letter travel across the continent in two days for 44 cents... what exactly is it that flows through your mind? Do you have a filter that just completely blanks it out?
If not, how do you reconcile that with your post above?
Your whole argument is completely and 100% dependent upon the existence of a huge group of people that are entirely beyond self-interest, and that we can hire to run the government.
That's such an absurd straw man that you should be ashamed for successfully typing it out without realizing how inane it is.
The proof of the extraordinary absurdity of your straw man is the millions of counter examples that occur every single day. If your straw man were true, then every success would mean that there was at least one person in government who is "entirely beyond self-interest". Since I contend no such person exists (and I can only assume you agree with me on this at least), then clearly my argument is not "completely and 100% dependent upon the existence" of not even a "huge group of such people", but even just one.
None exist, yet government both can and does promote the welfare of society. Clearly one of us is fantastically wrong here, but given your blank-out filter, I can only assume you will be unable to realize that the person in question is you.
What was the worst thing about California, it was regulation that brought about the shortages that caused the price spike. Retail prices were fixed. Fuel costs went up. Unprofitable generation went offline for for repairs, maintenance, or upgrades, or simply shut down.
This was followed by a mild heat wave. The result was rolling blackouts as the cheap efficient sources were inadequate. New generation and transmission was not built due to lack of profit.
That sounds like an argument for government involvement, not against. If power generation and transmission is a responsibility assumed by the government, then the government can do things a private corporation is loathe to do. It can build out capabilities ahead of, and in excess of, present demand, and it can run at a loss over periods of time as necessary.
Also, the recall era brown-outs were deliberate political ploys intended to raise public ire sufficient to support a recall of Governor Davis. Had the private utilities ran at a loss (perhaps with public subsidies, like we currently do with farms in the US, for the exact same type of reason), the brown outs would have been significantly less widespread.
The problem isn't that private corporations are efficient, the problem is that they are far too good at being efficient and don't know when efficiency should give way to the service of the public well being.
No, the real free market solution (a.k.a. the ones politicians would never propose) is that you get a whole bunch of power companies competing on the same grid,
That's not really feasible. Are you expecting small scale coal and nuclear plants popping up all over the place? Does that even sound like a good thing without regulation? Sure, they can potentially do it cheaper, if they have no safety or pollution regulations to contend with. And it's unclear how you can privately compete with something like a dam. Do you just let anyone put up their own dam?
Some things naturally tend towards monopolies. Power is one of them. Some things are so dangerous (nuclear) or destructive to the local environment (coal plants) that regulation is critical.
attempting to be a lower cost than one another, and give consumers a choice of who to pay for their power.
And that's the problem right there. Aside from some minimal inherent inefficiency, there are some costs involved in a regulated system like the power grid that goes to making sure power is produced in a way that is not unduly detrimental to the environment, to the people that live around the plants, and in a design that provides consistent power.
A private system would have lower up-front prices, but would do so at the costs of our environment and the health of some of us. Also, those prices would be lower because the grid would be of lower reliability. Some bean-counter somewhere would do the calculus and find a point where increasing reliability no longer increases profits. It's sort of the "Ford Pinto" calculation. If the car will make more money than it will cost in wrongful death suits, someone will decide to ship a car that never should have seen the light of day. In terms of power transmission, outages during peak usages (i.e., winter heating and summer cooling) will be deemed acceptable, because the increased cost to fortify the grid and to allow for short periods of significantly greater power generation, will not be deemed reasonable due to limited increased revenue. This will lead to the deaths of people during hot and cold times.
Say what you will about a government monopoly, but if done properly, it provides a service that serves the needs of the people. If done what some people call "right", the private sector often does the exact opposite.
You don't regulate the price directly, or directly control the companies providing the power; that's a recipe for disaster. Granting a monopoly, whether government or private, is going to cause bloat and high prices, then eventual failure of the system.
What a strange thing to say. Radio, TV and cell service is based on a private monopoly, and has not lead to "bloat and high prices, then eventual failure of the system". Same is true for things like roads, armies, fire departments, police stations, schools, libraries, sewer, water, power, and many other things. The idea that monopolies and/or government intervention inevitably leads to failure is a dogmatic tenet that is contradicted a million times a day, but because it's taken as an axiom by far too many people in the US (in most other civilized nations, the number of people who hold this dogma is thankfully more manageable), we end up with absurd public discussions, like, "should we trust essential services, like power, fire, police, etc., to the private sector?"
The NT Kernel might be, even after all this time slapping whatever each release thinks is a useful feature into it, but who cares about that. I think I can guarantee Office will not run on ARM, so its pretty much dead already.
Microsoft has two cash cows, Windows and Office. If they are going to take the time to port Windows to a platform, it would be strange for them to not also port Office. I have no idea how you can "guarantee" that Office won't run on ARM.
I've never owned as ARM computer (just C=6502, 68000-60, PowerPC, x86, MIPS, and EE).
Why do you think that matters? There will always be someone how hasn't owned some particular thing, yet that thing can be popular.
Why do you think ARM will be a dominant brand in the coming years
It already is. iPhone, iPod touch, iPad, Android...
These devices are projected to outsell traditional PCs in the near future. It's likely that ARM outsells AMD already, and possibly even Intel. Even of not, ARM is already a dominant brand.
No, but we'll take me as an example here.
I have a Samsung moment phone it sucks. So did my last Samsung (non-smart) phone. I can keep my apps and move to an HTC or Motorola phone.
You are still "locked" into Android. You can't just buy an iPhone or a Windows 7 phone, or a PalmOS tablet, etc.
My sister and her husband have Windows Mobile phones. My sister's was horrible, her husbands was great. She switched over, no loss.
Same thing.
Now, one of my friends has an iPhone. He hates it, but has a lot of apps for it. He doesn't want to re-buy similar apps on another phone. So he has to stick with the iPhone, or re-buy the apps.
I see. So, if you buy an iPhone 3G and it sucks, there's no other iOS phones out there? You can't buy an iPhone 3GS, or an iPhone 4, or an iPod touch, or next year's iPhone?
But I put "locked" in quotes above, because you aren't locked into shit. You just rebuy your apps. It's strange to buy so many apps for a phone that someone "hates" that switching platforms is a huge deal. I can tell you with absolute certainty that if Android (or some other mobile OS) were to be so great, and iOS so bad, I would switch. It's absurd to live with a system you hate just because of ~$100 worth of apps. The phone itself costs more than that!
But it's just like going from tape to CD, or VHS to DVD, PS2 to Xbox 360, or Windows to Mac... You rebuy your music/movies/games/programs. The only "lock in" is in your mind.
The lock-in happens with the license, not the the original platform of development.
Please cite where in the license for buying a Mac or iPod or iPhone or anything else Apple, that you are then locked into Apple's products. That was the original claim: "and if you do end up getting one [iPhone/iPad], and deciding to leave, you are fairly well locked in."
Chances are, if you "buy a Linux program" you will get the program's source as part of the deal.
I'm sure Oracle and IBM just give you their source code when you buy their software, and games makers just give out their source code when you buy the Humble Indie Bundle...
That enables you to port the program to other platforms or hire someone to do so.
Which is what I meant when I said "theoretically, not practically". Of the people buying iPhones, the percentage of those that even can port a program is miniscule. But the scenario is exactly the same with open source iOS apps as it is with open source Linux programs. If you want to port them to Android, you can!
The alternative is that you do not get the source, and the only way to port to another platform (legally) is to beg the entity to which you are now shackled.
Which is absolutely no different on Linux than it is on iOS than it is on Windows than it is on any other platform.
Actually Linux (and similar copylefted OSes and libraries) doesn't qualify as part of this because you can legally uproot support provided you retain copyleft.
Theoretically, but not practically. If you buy a Linux program, you are "locked in" to Linux, at least as much as if you buy an iOS app or a Windows program it ties you to those systems. Even open source programs are locked in until they are ported, just like any other system. If you download VLC or Battle For Wesnoth for the iPhone, you are in the exact same boat.
Many other platforms are becoming increasingly difficult to emulate or otherwise provide support to applications outside of the original platform. PS2 emulation is dead-in-the-water without an encrypted dump from a real PS2... Apple sues unauthorized vendors of Apple products. ... why? Because everyone who uses (read: turns on) a Mac violates the DMCA -- and Apple reserves the right to sue you if you piss them off for some reason.
That's a wholly nonsensical article. When you run software, you make a copy as affected by copyright law. Mac users get a license to run Mac OS X on a Mac. The notion that every Mac user is in violation of the DMCA is ludicrous. How you came to the conclusion you did is beyond me.
Does knowing this "subtle but important" distinction somehow make the unavailable networks available? Because if it doesn't, I don't see how it's particularly important here.
That's what u think. Have you read Apple's EULA? It says ..."Apple can and will decide what you can and will use on anything you buy from Apple. And oh yeah BTW, Jailbreaking is NOT legal or cool. The Black Turtlenecked Lord of the Underworld has spoken .... So let it be written, so let it be done"
Um, no. It doesn't. And I don't mean "in those words", I mean, it doesn't say those things at all, regardless of phrasing.
you mean Apple isn't as open as they always envisioned they were?
I'd be interested to know of how many major companies you can name that own, maintain, or are very active in as many open source projects as Apple is. While you're at it, could you name the major software maker tends to support open file and interface standards as much as Apple does.
This has nothing to do with controlling what developers do with the money they make from their apps and everything to do with the promises made as part of the sale of the app. If the author just donated to Wikileaks, that's one thing. But if he ties those donations to the app itself, it becomes something else entirely.
This "Apple is a business" argument is stupid. That's like saying, "The mafia is a business". Yes, it's true. But the argument doesn't address the behavior. As a society, we don't allow mafia type businesses with their murder and extortion.
Murder and extortion are illegal and immoral activities. Apple's behavior is neither.
We don't have to allow Apple's closed garden.
Yes, we do, because it's Apple's garden to do with as they wish. It's only if it becomes illegal or immoral that the issue of whether "we have to allow it" comes into play.
Why people think that because an organization is a "business" that they should be free from moral constraints, is beyond me.
This I agree with, but I don't see how it applies here.