And that's where the epic fail resided before Apple came out with the iPad! An OS wholly unsuited for a tablet device! Only the tight integration of OS and hardware that Apple provided is what made a tablet computer a useful! Yes, not for all the same things as a laptop, but, partially the same things and some other things for which a laptop is not ideally suited, such as reading or watching video on a plane. I love my MacBook Pro, especially with MacPorts giving me a lot of the unix-y command-line tools that I love, but I would never use it or even a much smaller laptop (mine is 17") to replace my iPad for my lengthy bus rides or even on my plane rides. And yes, for me it is primarily a media consumption device and fantastic web browser. (I know, no Flash, and good riddance to it, too!) But, so what? The right thing for the right job is what I say. It may not work for you and I don't see it replacing my laptop for a long time, or even ever, but I get about 2 hours of solid use out of it every week day and for non-geeks, I am a programmer, it may well work as the only device they need. Especially when paired with a bluetooth keyboard.
RE: Democracy is a political system. Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are economic systems.
Whats your point?
I think his point is that you can have both communism and capitalism with a democracy or a dictatorship. I know in the US many confuse capitalism and democracy and think it is somehow the same.
I use my iPad2 for roughly 2 hours per day Monday through Friday on my bus commute. It is far more comfortable to use for reading and browsing than a laptop. Other than that I use it when I fly. Again, much more comfortable to use than the 15" laptop that I used in the past. It is also great during boring meetings that i am forced to attend once a week. I know a lot of clueless morons claim that netbooks are so superior but I have never seen anyone hold up a netbook to their face or even keep it on their lap to read an ebook for an hour on the bus. Hmm, I wonder why that is? Could it be that it is incredibly uncomfortable and awkward? I do see students use a laptop very briefly on the bus maybe once or twice a year. But, I have seen other people use a Kindle or an iPad for extended periods of time. I also use my iPad occasionally with Skype to communicate with friends or coworkers while I am on the bus. I have used an iPod Touch before to read but it just doesn't compare because of the tiny screen. Also browsing is an even better experience on my iPad than on my laptop. And it will only get better. The improvements that I am looking for are, a higher resolution screen, a lighter device, more battery life even though it is not really an issue for me, it just would be nice, and lots more storage because I love to fill the thing up with movies when I travel and more choice is always good and I just love to keep some shows like Cowboy Bebop and The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya permanently. I should add that I commute to and from a major US university where I work as a software developer. I am the stereotypical UNIX nerd: I am overweight, dress poorly, have long grey hair and generally couldn't give a rat's ass as to what others think about me. The operating systems I currently use are Linux, Mac OS/iOS and Solaris. I hate Windows!
I guess I poorly expressed what I wanted to say. I did mean to say that he/she does not have an expectation of privacy while being on the job but does have one while off the job. And yes, I do think that is a trade-off because the otherwise reasonable expectation of having privacy is being restricted. Nonetheless I think this is the right way to do things.
But what about the public employee's right to privacy?
Of course he has this right, but not when he is executing his public duties. There frequently have to be trade-offs. Different societies will make different choices. In this particular area I am happier with the choices that mine made than, for example, the choices that were made in the US.
Such laws make it that much harder for an individual to record wrongdoing by government agents.
I am not entirely sure, but I believe it is legal to observe and record officials while engaging in their public duties. At least I have never come across anything in the news that would have indicated this not to be the case and I would be greatly surprised if a case like that would not have been front-page news if it ever did happen.
Yes there is a right to privacy. But when you take your private activities into a public space, you are choosing not to exercise that right. If you have decided that your privacy means so little to you that you are going to flaunt your activities where anyone can see them,
...
a) It's not "anyone" but typically a very small subset of "anyone", and b) you're wrong when there are applicable laws!...
why should the state protect this right when you won't take even the most basic steps to secure your own privacy?
Easy -- because we elected politicians that actually implemented our expectations of such rights. Yes, the electoral process works every now and then!;)
The only difference between one person seeing you on the street, and having that data searchable on the internet is to what extent that person exercises his free speech rights. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with free speech. Your position is blatantly authoritarian.
If you have a secret you want to keep, don't tell anyone. Once the secret is out, you can't stop other people from telling it without violating their rights.
While I understand your point, I don't see everything as black and white as you do. I think that what we are dealing with are two rights that are conflicting here. The right to free speech and the right to privacy. When you have two rights conflicting like this it is always a judgment call as to how to resolve this for any given situation. Obviously we differ on this!
Also, I find it kind of ironic that you keep calling me and/or the German state authoritarian because of this because a large area of what German privacy laws are about is protecting the individual from the state, but not only the state, tracking them and correlating data about them. I, for my part, think of that as the exact opposite of authoritarian! I don't want a Big Brother, whether it is my government or large corporations!
You have no privacy in public. You can't legislate around the simple fact that other people can see your face. If you really need your privacy on public streets, wear a mask. Restricting the ability of photographers to engage in their craft in public spaces because you can't apply a little common sense is needlessly authoritarian.
There is a huge difference between a few people seeing you in public and anyone, word-wide being able to search for pictures of you in various public situations. I don't see how anybody can equate those things! Also laws in probably every country restrict the ability of various people to engage in their craft. My gripe, for example, is not with people taking pictures of something where I may appear in the background, but in making these pictures available to a broad public. I'd like to add that I am a German national living in the US. And, I am frequently appalled by how US corporations can share and sell personal data about me just so they can try to more effectively harass me with their advertising garbage and/or use it to potentially discriminate against me, based on medical conditions etc. that I may or may not have! While I may not be a typical German in a lot of ways (I am not a soccer fan, for example), I sure am in terms of valuing my privacy!
Imagine that, restrictive laws in Germany. You'd think they would have learned something about authoritarianism, but no.
Rather than saying "restrictive laws" you might as well say "laws" as most laws are restrictive! Also what you call "restrictive" in this case, I call "protecting my privacy", something that I value quite a bit!
I think it comes from Alemanic tribes whose descendents live in parts of Southern Germany and Switzerland. In Germany it is mostly the area of the modern state of Baden-Württemberg.
two "l"'s actually platter, a type of plate larger than a dining plate on which food is served,
I knew what "platter" was, I was just curious whether there was such a word as "plater" and if it existed, what it meant!:)
I find that just because the spellchecker doesn't highlight something certainly doesn't imply that it is correct. Just look at how many people there are that can't seem to distinguish between "their" and "there" or "it is", when written as a contraction and "its", the possessive pronoun. I guess after all proofreading is still useful!
Standard blu-ray discs, which are the same size already store 50GB and there are already blu-ray solutions that are supposed to store multiple times that. So, at most 10x, certainly nowhere near 100x!
So let me get this straight. I can't afford an iphone, but taxes are being taken from my meager paycheck in order to give them to police officers and soldiers?
You probably can't afford a tank or fighter plane either and taxes are taken from your paycheck in order to give them to soldiers. What's your point?
Re:Kevin Bacon has played many roles in his career
on
X-Men: First Class
·
· Score: 1
Not all of us can be reduced to what's between our legs! Also, she was absolutely terrible in the X-Men movies that she was in and I also hated her acting in Die Another Day. I'd rather have a competent actress than one that is pretty! (For all the morons: That's *my* *personal* opinion and I don't care if you disagree or what awards she has won or not!)
Humanity's single greatest embarrassment is their complete incompetence at self-governance.
And here I thought it was religion, given the fact that the majority of mankind believes in an imaginary all-powerful entity that cares what they do and then bothers to punish or reward them based on whether they follow different sets of rules based on which particular flavour of superstition a given individual subscribes to.
Even at $2500 a month, you're not going to have your entire retirement funded in a handful of years, which is what the AC alleged.
Yes, but that's $90k in just 3 years. Certainly nothing to sneeze at! Now imagine investing that in mutual funds and bonds for 15 years and it already helps in a noticeable way.
Still, I do agree with you. I think it takes about 20-30 years of saving to have a fairly financially sound retirement investment. Personally I feel that I owe myself that! I also think that it is dangerous to stand on just one leg. For example, as a hedge against inflation,and a storage facility for my huge comic book collection, I put down 20% on a condo last year. Short term that is a nuisance, but, I feel that over 10 years things look pretty good. Even if I'll only break even it is nice to know that if there is a lot of inflation, I will at least have some property that will retain some value. And that's just one of 3 legs that I stand on for my retirement strategy. Ok, maybe I feel a bit cocky when I compare myself to the average person with my level of income. I can see myself being a real jackass when I am retired. Fortunately I also have compassion for others and can suppress the the urge to rub it in.;)
I work with some highly intelligent young people sharing my office space. I was really impressed that some of them, who are only in their mid to late twenties, have already started saving and investing for their retirement. I wish I would have done that at that age. I bet I could have looked at retiring at 55 to 57 instead of 62. Smart kids!
What a bunch of bull! A few years ago I made $112k/year and put away $2500/month pre-tax consistently for 3 years in a row! If I couldn't have done that, I would have put away $1600/month after tax! I don't feel any sympathy for people that make as much as I did or even more. They can easily put away significant amounts of money and live extremely well when they retire. Since I turned 40 I have been saving money even when I was making significantly less than $100k/year, which was most of my live and is true currently. If you don't save at least 10% of your monthly income you're a fool! Who wants to never be able to retire and/or have to worry about money when you're old? My attitude is that if you can't save 10% you're clearly living beyond your means! And that's true just as much on $40k/year as on $1mil/year. That's why I will continue to enjoy the life style I am used to when I retire at age 62 and I will move to Hawaii to boot. Even if there is a huge unexpected disaster that throws a wrench into my plans I will still be way better off than most others with the same income because most of them are idiots that spend nearly every penny that they make! And yes, I am having plenty of fun right now!
I might be in the minority, but I do want a la carte TV channels. In fact they'd be getting infinitely more money from me that way as the only show I care to watch that's not available OTA is on HBO. That show is not worth $70 a month that Comcast would charge me, so no dice, but if I could get that one channel or show I'd gladly pay $10 or so a month for it.
Seconded! I don't pay for cable and don't watch OTA TV broadcasts either. I either watch DVDs or blu-ray discs or stream video over the 'net. If there was an à la carte service, there is the distinct possibility that I might pay for a cable channel or two. But, unlike you, I would not be willing to pay more than $5 per channel and even that seems high, given the other options that I have. Also, typically I would only watch a show or two per channel and at $5, that's $60 per year. Likely enough to buy whatever shows on DVD or even blu-ray. And yes, I *can* wait! Of course, if I paid for a channel or two, I'd be griping that their still in the stone age when I have to either record a show or watch it when it is on rather than streaming it whenever I feel like watching it.;) I am certain that I would not pay $10 per channel. I pay $5 per month to stream animé in 720p w/o commercials. And the selection is quite large. Frequently I get episodes one week after they're released in Japan, w/ good subtitles. (I hate dubbed animé.) Btw., the streaming video looks awesome on my 46" TV. I have no idea why anyone would pay for cable! I also use Hulu. And gasp, I spend far more time reading than watching the boob tube! Let's say you have kids, then it is probably a good idea not to have TV available 24/7 anyway and, with the money you save, you can buy DVDs for them with material that you approve of.
Slashdot Mirror
windows xp
And that's where the epic fail resided before Apple came out with the iPad! An OS wholly unsuited for a tablet device! Only the tight integration of OS and hardware that Apple provided is what made a tablet computer a useful! Yes, not for all the same things as a laptop, but, partially the same things and some other things for which a laptop is not ideally suited, such as reading or watching video on a plane. I love my MacBook Pro, especially with MacPorts giving me a lot of the unix-y command-line tools that I love, but I would never use it or even a much smaller laptop (mine is 17") to replace my iPad for my lengthy bus rides or even on my plane rides. And yes, for me it is primarily a media consumption device and fantastic web browser. (I know, no Flash, and good riddance to it, too!) But, so what? The right thing for the right job is what I say. It may not work for you and I don't see it replacing my laptop for a long time, or even ever, but I get about 2 hours of solid use out of it every week day and for non-geeks, I am a programmer, it may well work as the only device they need. Especially when paired with a bluetooth keyboard.
RE: Democracy is a political system. Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are economic systems.
Whats your point?
I think his point is that you can have both communism and capitalism with a democracy or a dictatorship. I know in the US many confuse capitalism and democracy and think it is somehow the same.
I use my iPad2 for roughly 2 hours per day Monday through Friday on my bus commute. It is far more comfortable to use for reading and browsing than a laptop. Other than that I use it when I fly. Again, much more comfortable to use than the 15" laptop that I used in the past. It is also great during boring meetings that i am forced to attend once a week. I know a lot of clueless morons claim that netbooks are so superior but I have never seen anyone hold up a netbook to their face or even keep it on their lap to read an ebook for an hour on the bus. Hmm, I wonder why that is? Could it be that it is incredibly uncomfortable and awkward? I do see students use a laptop very briefly on the bus maybe once or twice a year. But, I have seen other people use a Kindle or an iPad for extended periods of time. I also use my iPad occasionally with Skype to communicate with friends or coworkers while I am on the bus. I have used an iPod Touch before to read but it just doesn't compare because of the tiny screen. Also browsing is an even better experience on my iPad than on my laptop. And it will only get better. The improvements that I am looking for are, a higher resolution screen, a lighter device, more battery life even though it is not really an issue for me, it just would be nice, and lots more storage because I love to fill the thing up with movies when I travel and more choice is always good and I just love to keep some shows like Cowboy Bebop and The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya permanently. I should add that I commute to and from a major US university where I work as a software developer. I am the stereotypical UNIX nerd: I am overweight, dress poorly, have long grey hair and generally couldn't give a rat's ass as to what others think about me. The operating systems I currently use are Linux, Mac OS/iOS and Solaris. I hate Windows!
I guess I poorly expressed what I wanted to say. I did mean to say that he/she does not have an expectation of privacy while being on the job but does have one while off the job. And yes, I do think that is a trade-off because the otherwise reasonable expectation of having privacy is being restricted. Nonetheless I think this is the right way to do things.
But what about the public employee's right to privacy?
Of course he has this right, but not when he is executing his public duties. There frequently have to be trade-offs. Different societies will make different choices. In this particular area I am happier with the choices that mine made than, for example, the choices that were made in the US.
Such laws make it that much harder for an individual to record wrongdoing by government agents.
I am not entirely sure, but I believe it is legal to observe and record officials while engaging in their public duties. At least I have never come across anything in the news that would have indicated this not to be the case and I would be greatly surprised if a case like that would not have been front-page news if it ever did happen.
Yes there is a right to privacy. But when you take your private activities into a public space, you are choosing not to exercise that right. If you have decided that your privacy means so little to you that you are going to flaunt your activities where anyone can see them,
...
a) It's not "anyone" but typically a very small subset of "anyone", and b) you're wrong when there are applicable laws! ...
why should the state protect this right when you won't take even the most basic steps to secure your own privacy?
Easy -- because we elected politicians that actually implemented our expectations of such rights. Yes, the electoral process works every now and then! ;)
The only difference between one person seeing you on the street, and having that data searchable on the internet is to what extent that person exercises his free speech rights. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with free speech. Your position is blatantly authoritarian.
If you have a secret you want to keep, don't tell anyone. Once the secret is out, you can't stop other people from telling it without violating their rights.
While I understand your point, I don't see everything as black and white as you do. I think that what we are dealing with are two rights that are conflicting here. The right to free speech and the right to privacy. When you have two rights conflicting like this it is always a judgment call as to how to resolve this for any given situation. Obviously we differ on this!
Also, I find it kind of ironic that you keep calling me and/or the German state authoritarian because of this because a large area of what German privacy laws are about is protecting the individual from the state, but not only the state, tracking them and correlating data about them. I, for my part, think of that as the exact opposite of authoritarian! I don't want a Big Brother, whether it is my government or large corporations!
You have no privacy in public. You can't legislate around the simple fact that other people can see your face. If you really need your privacy on public streets, wear a mask. Restricting the ability of photographers to engage in their craft in public spaces because you can't apply a little common sense is needlessly authoritarian.
There is a huge difference between a few people seeing you in public and anyone, word-wide being able to search for pictures of you in various public situations. I don't see how anybody can equate those things! Also laws in probably every country restrict the ability of various people to engage in their craft. My gripe, for example, is not with people taking pictures of something where I may appear in the background, but in making these pictures available to a broad public. I'd like to add that I am a German national living in the US. And, I am frequently appalled by how US corporations can share and sell personal data about me just so they can try to more effectively harass me with their advertising garbage and/or use it to potentially discriminate against me, based on medical conditions etc. that I may or may not have! While I may not be a typical German in a lot of ways (I am not a soccer fan, for example), I sure am in terms of valuing my privacy!
Imagine that, restrictive laws in Germany. You'd think they would have learned something about authoritarianism, but no.
Rather than saying "restrictive laws" you might as well say "laws" as most laws are restrictive! Also what you call "restrictive" in this case, I call "protecting my privacy", something that I value quite a bit!
I think it comes from Alemanic tribes whose descendents live in parts of Southern Germany and Switzerland. In Germany it is mostly the area of the modern state of Baden-Württemberg.
Your right
What about my left?
two "l"'s actually platter, a type of plate larger than a dining plate on which food is served,
I knew what "platter" was, I was just curious whether there was such a word as "plater" and if it existed, what it meant! :)
I find that just because the spellchecker doesn't highlight something certainly doesn't imply that it is correct. Just look at how many people there are that can't seem to distinguish between "their" and "there" or "it is", when written as a contraction and "its", the possessive pronoun. I guess after all proofreading is still useful!
on a silver plater
English not being my native language, I had to look this one up:
plater
[pley-ter; for 2 also plat-er]
–noun
1. a person or thing that plates.
2. an inferior race horse.
Standard blu-ray discs, which are the same size already store 50GB and there are already blu-ray solutions that are supposed to store multiple times that. So, at most 10x, certainly nowhere near 100x!
So let me get this straight. I can't afford an iphone, but taxes are being taken from my meager paycheck in order to give them to police officers and soldiers?
You probably can't afford a tank or fighter plane either and taxes are taken from your paycheck in order to give them to soldiers. What's your point?
Not all of us can be reduced to what's between our legs! Also, she was absolutely terrible in the X-Men movies that she was in and I also hated her acting in Die Another Day. I'd rather have a competent actress than one that is pretty!
(For all the morons: That's *my* *personal* opinion and I don't care if you disagree or what awards she has won or not!)
No, just that some dude and his followers are whack-jobs.
You mean like all religious believers?!
further != farther
"and protect it is secrets" What does that even mean?
Humanity's single greatest embarrassment is their complete incompetence at self-governance.
And here I thought it was religion, given the fact that the majority of mankind believes in an imaginary all-powerful entity that cares what they do and then bothers to punish or reward them based on whether they follow different sets of rules based on which particular flavour of superstition a given individual subscribes to.
...then where do you keep your underwear?
How do you know that he even owns underwear, you insensitive clod?
Even at $2500 a month, you're not going to have your entire retirement funded in a handful of years, which is what the AC alleged.
Yes, but that's $90k in just 3 years. Certainly nothing to sneeze at! Now imagine investing that in mutual funds and bonds for 15 years and it already helps in a noticeable way.
Still, I do agree with you. I think it takes about 20-30 years of saving to have a fairly financially sound retirement investment. Personally I feel that I owe myself that! I also think that it is dangerous to stand on just one leg. For example, as a hedge against inflation ,and a storage facility for my huge comic book collection, I put down 20% on a condo last year. Short term that is a nuisance, but, I feel that over 10 years things look pretty good. Even if I'll only break even it is nice to know that if there is a lot of inflation, I will at least have some property that will retain some value. And that's just one of 3 legs that I stand on for my retirement strategy. Ok, maybe I feel a bit cocky when I compare myself to the average person with my level of income. I can see myself being a real jackass when I am retired. Fortunately I also have compassion for others and can suppress the the urge to rub it in. ;)
I work with some highly intelligent young people sharing my office space. I was really impressed that some of them, who are only in their mid to late twenties, have already started saving and investing for their retirement. I wish I would have done that at that age. I bet I could have looked at retiring at 55 to 57 instead of 62. Smart kids!
What a bunch of bull! A few years ago I made $112k/year and put away $2500/month pre-tax consistently for 3 years in a row! If I couldn't have done that, I would have put away $1600/month after tax! I don't feel any sympathy for people that make as much as I did or even more. They can easily put away significant amounts of money and live extremely well when they retire. Since I turned 40 I have been saving money even when I was making significantly less than $100k/year, which was most of my live and is true currently. If you don't save at least 10% of your monthly income you're a fool! Who wants to never be able to retire and/or have to worry about money when you're old? My attitude is that if you can't save 10% you're clearly living beyond your means! And that's true just as much on $40k/year as on $1mil/year. That's why I will continue to enjoy the life style I am used to when I retire at age 62 and I will move to Hawaii to boot. Even if there is a huge unexpected disaster that throws a wrench into my plans I will still be way better off than most others with the same income because most of them are idiots that spend nearly every penny that they make! And yes, I am having plenty of fun right now!
I might be in the minority, but I do want a la carte TV channels. In fact they'd be getting infinitely more money from me that way as the only show I care to watch that's not available OTA is on HBO. That show is not worth $70 a month that Comcast would charge me, so no dice, but if I could get that one channel or show I'd gladly pay $10 or so a month for it.
Seconded! I don't pay for cable and don't watch OTA TV broadcasts either. I either watch DVDs or blu-ray discs or stream video over the 'net. If there was an à la carte service, there is the distinct possibility that I might pay for a cable channel or two. But, unlike you, I would not be willing to pay more than $5 per channel and even that seems high, given the other options that I have. Also, typically I would only watch a show or two per channel and at $5, that's $60 per year. Likely enough to buy whatever shows on DVD or even blu-ray. And yes, I *can* wait! Of course, if I paid for a channel or two, I'd be griping that their still in the stone age when I have to either record a show or watch it when it is on rather than streaming it whenever I feel like watching it. ;) I am certain that I would not pay $10 per channel. I pay $5 per month to stream animé in 720p w/o commercials. And the selection is quite large. Frequently I get episodes one week after they're released in Japan, w/ good subtitles. (I hate dubbed animé.) Btw., the streaming video looks awesome on my 46" TV. I have no idea why anyone would pay for cable! I also use Hulu. And gasp, I spend far more time reading than watching the boob tube! Let's say you have kids, then it is probably a good idea not to have TV available 24/7 anyway and, with the money you save, you can buy DVDs for them with material that you approve of.