States that Jobs created a proprietary ecosystem that ultimately deprived users of computing freedom
An ecosystem, that if willingly chosen by the user, deprived them of computing freedom. But comes with a few associated benefits over computing freedom. And in Apple's case, presently, the goal was to make a simpler, more easily usable ecosystem for the user.
Why is the existence of that choice bad? Bad enough to be glad its creator is "gone"?
I can't stand booming overpowered car stereos. They damage their users' hearing, and annoy others. But a lot of people find it a engaging hobby and are into it. Should I want them gone?
No, I should want to be insulated from the effects of their choice. It is hypocritical for a proponent of freedom to go beyond that.
If there was a neighboring country comparable to the US right now with an unlimited dictatorship for government, and the dictator was (currently) reasonably benevolent, and ran the nation efficiently and prosperously, and it had an open immigration policy, would you care to guess how many people would move there to get away from what we have that passes fo a democratic system right now, in spite of the danger that the dictator would die and be replaced by an evil despot?
I would guess it would be tens of millions, maybe more.
Find a more accurately delineated group than "americans" to describe people who think Edison was a visionary inventor. Most technically literate americans I know are aware of exactly what Edison was.
A lot of people here seem to be assuming your current employer is the typical faceless massive corp that treats its employees as disposable in spite of your characterization of them as small enough that you are on friendly terms with senior management.
That sounds to me like a company where there is actually some sense of family atmosphere, and therefore worthy of a little consideration from you. I would talk to them and explain your dilemma. If you think you'll be better off with the new position, take it. But offer to assist with the current project to the best of your ability while starting the new job, at the very least taking phone calls to answer questions. Keeping that bridge intact instead of burning it at worst will cost you some personal hours in the next couple months, but could have much larger benefits in the future.
Took my kid to DC on vacation this year. When visiting the national archives, I very pointedly told him we would be viewing our former constitution and bill of rights. Without humor.
I'm curious about this as well. I would not give the passcode to an officer and unless they can show just cause to search your car, how would they ever get to your cell phone?
Is it intended to act as a DVR or is it streaming only? If the former, can it record a show while playing a game? Convergence sometimes has casualties.
Our U-verse DVR runs microsoft-supplied software. While my wife isn't a huge fan of it (I rarely use it), it's more or less on par with the dishnetwork unit we used to have, and usable. It does none of the things you jokingly posted.
The standout nits are probably no predictive search, and no memory of past searches, and a little glitchiness in recording streams from time to time. Nothing hair-tearingly bad though.
To picket his funeral, they will need to find it. I can't imagine Jobs' family is going to have a large public affair. Would be very atypical of how he did things.
Interesting point. But they would be helping Gamestop continue to sell their games used without giving them a cut of that, so I would expect that factor to enter the equation as well. Preventing that was the entire point of this move, so I don't think they will then turn around and reverse it or diminish it quite so easily. It will be a little more difficult of a negotiation than your scenario posits.
Looks like the people who lose out here will be either the stores (used games no longer sell for as much) or the people who sell their used games back to the stores.
I see some pretty ludicrous claims on the other side too. Ask anyone who's tried to make a living on donations how that "pay if you like it" model is working out for them.
Show me a single person who has claimed artists could completely support themselves with a "pay if you like it model". People opposing the the industry point out that you have to find a new way of monetizing music, because charging X$ for a "copy" of the music won't work anymore when that copy can be made for essentially nothing. They need to add value in some other form.
The whole "pay if you like it" exercise is to demonstrate that the claim of the RIAA that "non one will pay for music if they can get it for free" is false, that many still will pay. Most of the bands trying this exercise also have other purchase options, like including signed physical copies, access to limited concert tickets, or other things that a fan will care about.
Poor attempt to make the two sides out as equally unreasonable.
Makes me wonder if they thought only kids bought ipods when they chose the name Zune. And were therefore afraid branding the phones as Zune would limit their appeal. I don't wonder at all about the stupid insistence on including the name "windows" in a product that has no windows, though. They are hopelessly stuck in that "must keep mindshare on windows brand" mindset.
At best, it should be "suddenburstofslightlylesssenselessness".
These same teens can legally strip naked in front of each other, and even have sex with each other (barring certain restricted age mismatches). Just like adults. But unlike adults, they cannot text naked pictures of themselves to each other, whereas adults are free to do so (assuming they are not in congress).
The ONLY area I might be willing to see the very lightest of penalties, is if a recipient of such a photo forwards it on to others against the will of the sender. Even then, seems like a civil matter, like it would be for adults.
No, the conflict between science and religion is a false conflict created by atheists
While the historic details included in your post are reasonable, your premise above is ridiculous. The various incarnations of the church have largely been in power throughout history. And they have fairly efficiently suppressed science on occasion where it suited their purposes. It is only in the last hundred years being an atheist was even something safe to publicly admit to for anyone with a high profile. Probably only the last 50 for anyone like that to denigrate religion without serious consequences.
To suggest there has been a powerful organized atheist movement causing the conflict is quite a stretch. To suggest the current conflict with fundamentalists over science is caused by atheists is even more absurd if you look at the bulk of rational religious people and their lack of disagreement with science in general. It is only the hardcore religion abolitionists who get their ire up.
Are you really pretending to have seen none of the stories in the tech and mainstream press discussing how Apple has leveraged their huge supply of cash to get bulk component pricing agreements that no other manufacturer can match?
Slashdot Mirror
Don't agree with a lot of your post, but you left an obvious one out:
5) Numerous parents take to suing schools to raise their kids' grades because they missed out on the money.
By adding money into the equation, you've put the scent into the water that attracts lawyers.
States that Jobs created a proprietary ecosystem that ultimately deprived users of computing freedom
An ecosystem, that if willingly chosen by the user, deprived them of computing freedom. But comes with a few associated benefits over computing freedom. And in Apple's case, presently, the goal was to make a simpler, more easily usable ecosystem for the user.
Why is the existence of that choice bad? Bad enough to be glad its creator is "gone"?
I can't stand booming overpowered car stereos. They damage their users' hearing, and annoy others. But a lot of people find it a engaging hobby and are into it. Should I want them gone?
No, I should want to be insulated from the effects of their choice. It is hypocritical for a proponent of freedom to go beyond that.
If there was a neighboring country comparable to the US right now with an unlimited dictatorship for government, and the dictator was (currently) reasonably benevolent, and ran the nation efficiently and prosperously, and it had an open immigration policy, would you care to guess how many people would move there to get away from what we have that passes fo a democratic system right now, in spite of the danger that the dictator would die and be replaced by an evil despot?
I would guess it would be tens of millions, maybe more.
Find a more accurately delineated group than "americans" to describe people who think Edison was a visionary inventor. Most technically literate americans I know are aware of exactly what Edison was.
Great. So the joists are magnetized in both directions, and you'll have to degauss them twice.
A lot of people here seem to be assuming your current employer is the typical faceless massive corp that treats its employees as disposable in spite of your characterization of them as small enough that you are on friendly terms with senior management.
That sounds to me like a company where there is actually some sense of family atmosphere, and therefore worthy of a little consideration from you. I would talk to them and explain your dilemma. If you think you'll be better off with the new position, take it. But offer to assist with the current project to the best of your ability while starting the new job, at the very least taking phone calls to answer questions. Keeping that bridge intact instead of burning it at worst will cost you some personal hours in the next couple months, but could have much larger benefits in the future.
They'll ahve this:
http://translogic.aolautos.com/2011/04/29/police-device-used-to-steal-your-cell-phone-data-during-traffic/
Took my kid to DC on vacation this year. When visiting the national archives, I very pointedly told him we would be viewing our former constitution and bill of rights. Without humor.
I'm curious about this as well. I would not give the passcode to an officer and unless they can show just cause to search your car, how would they ever get to your cell phone?
With this:
http://translogic.aolautos.com/2011/04/29/police-device-used-to-steal-your-cell-phone-data-during-traffic/
They can't search mine. I don't have one.
Do they have the right to search passenger's phones as well?
Is it intended to act as a DVR or is it streaming only? If the former, can it record a show while playing a game? Convergence sometimes has casualties.
Our U-verse DVR runs microsoft-supplied software. While my wife isn't a huge fan of it (I rarely use it), it's more or less on par with the dishnetwork unit we used to have, and usable. It does none of the things you jokingly posted.
The standout nits are probably no predictive search, and no memory of past searches, and a little glitchiness in recording streams from time to time. Nothing hair-tearingly bad though.
To picket his funeral, they will need to find it. I can't imagine Jobs' family is going to have a large public affair. Would be very atypical of how he did things.
Interesting point. But they would be helping Gamestop continue to sell their games used without giving them a cut of that, so I would expect that factor to enter the equation as well. Preventing that was the entire point of this move, so I don't think they will then turn around and reverse it or diminish it quite so easily. It will be a little more difficult of a negotiation than your scenario posits.
Looks like the people who lose out here will be either the stores (used games no longer sell for as much) or the people who sell their used games back to the stores.
Or?
It will be both.
I see some pretty ludicrous claims on the other side too. Ask anyone who's tried to make a living on donations how that "pay if you like it" model is working out for them.
Show me a single person who has claimed artists could completely support themselves with a "pay if you like it model". People opposing the the industry point out that you have to find a new way of monetizing music, because charging X$ for a "copy" of the music won't work anymore when that copy can be made for essentially nothing. They need to add value in some other form.
The whole "pay if you like it" exercise is to demonstrate that the claim of the RIAA that "non one will pay for music if they can get it for free" is false, that many still will pay. Most of the bands trying this exercise also have other purchase options, like including signed physical copies, access to limited concert tickets, or other things that a fan will care about.
Poor attempt to make the two sides out as equally unreasonable.
Makes me wonder if they thought only kids bought ipods when they chose the name Zune. And were therefore afraid branding the phones as Zune would limit their appeal. I don't wonder at all about the stupid insistence on including the name "windows" in a product that has no windows, though. They are hopelessly stuck in that "must keep mindshare on windows brand" mindset.
Apple doesn't go after anyone who modifies OS X to run on non-Apple hardware unless they distribute it either.
At best, it should be "suddenburstofslightlylesssenselessness".
These same teens can legally strip naked in front of each other, and even have sex with each other (barring certain restricted age mismatches). Just like adults. But unlike adults, they cannot text naked pictures of themselves to each other, whereas adults are free to do so (assuming they are not in congress).
The ONLY area I might be willing to see the very lightest of penalties, is if a recipient of such a photo forwards it on to others against the will of the sender. Even then, seems like a civil matter, like it would be for adults.
To be fair, GP did say "no fiddling with alternative flashing and rooting. It just works"
Just because you're with LUH now is no reason to talk about her like that, THX.
Because terrorists all have facebook accounts? I would assume most of them have very little online presence, pictorially anyway.
No, the conflict between science and religion is a false conflict created by atheists
While the historic details included in your post are reasonable, your premise above is ridiculous. The various incarnations of the church have largely been in power throughout history. And they have fairly efficiently suppressed science on occasion where it suited their purposes. It is only in the last hundred years being an atheist was even something safe to publicly admit to for anyone with a high profile. Probably only the last 50 for anyone like that to denigrate religion without serious consequences.
To suggest there has been a powerful organized atheist movement causing the conflict is quite a stretch. To suggest the current conflict with fundamentalists over science is caused by atheists is even more absurd if you look at the bulk of rational religious people and their lack of disagreement with science in general. It is only the hardcore religion abolitionists who get their ire up.
Are you really pretending to have seen none of the stories in the tech and mainstream press discussing how Apple has leveraged their huge supply of cash to get bulk component pricing agreements that no other manufacturer can match?
Maybe so, but the money in the deal is all going Samsung-->MS