If you're using an unencrypted connection for anything important then you're asking for trouble. Doesn't matter what kind of network you're using.
And "$100 less" doesn't make much sense to me. The Touch costs $30 more than the iPhone if you don't count the subscription, and about $1800 less than the iPhone if you do. What sort of accounting makes it cost $100 less?
There's nothing particularly special about the iPhone as a phone. What it has going for it is the non-phone stuff.
There only difference between an iPhone and purchasing a regular cell phone and an iPod Touch together is that the latter can't get on the web when you're out in the middle of nowhere. But if you only access the internet when you're around a wifi network then you lose nothing by simply having a separate phone.
Apple has not rejected three apps, they have pulled three apps. They are almost certainly rejecting a lot of apps, and those three are ones which slipped through their checks and then were caught after showing up in the store later on.
And comparing it to other mobile providers misses the point. The others suck worse, yep. It's like brushing off American human rights abuses by saying that things are worse in North Korea. It's true, but a completely pointless thing to say.
Let's instead compare it to something that's actually good, like developing for Mac OS X. There, I can download the tools for free, build and test on the deployment platform, and distribute my product to anyone who cares to obtain it all without having to get any kind of "approval" from Big Brother Apple. I don't see why the iPhone couldn't work the same way, but Apple decided they'd rather have total control.
Yeah, right. I don't know anyone who hasn't purchased an iPhone specifically because you can't install arbitrary software on it. Meanwhile the number of people I know who have purchased iPhones is far beyond my ability to count on my fingers and toes.
I'm as pro-open-platform as the next guy. I hate the fact that the iPhone is so closed, and I really wish Apple would open it up. But let's not get deluded into thinking that other people share this concern. The thing is an enormous success and nobody outside of a few fanatics even notices the fact that you can't develop for it without Apple's permission.
But the warning applies to everybody, and the manager should know this. So why should I make a special effort to point out an obvious fact that applies to every single person?
"Feel" is a useless measurement. Time it with a clock if you want a meaningful number. If your goal is to just go with whatever feels nicest to you then certainly you shouldn't bother, but you should realize that this doesn't mean you'll be using the app that's actually faster.
If they instead put effort into making their JavaScript interpreter properly asynchronous, not only would JS not freeze other tabs but it would also not freeze the same tab that it's running in.
It's not really a question of intelligence so much as motivation and organization.
NASA's goal is not to launch things into space. Their goal is to obtain greater funding and employ people. Launching things into space is just a technique for doing that. Lately they seem to have discovered that merely preparing to launch things into space works nearly as well for accomplishing their goals, so they don't have to actually launch very much.
SpaceX's goal is, of course, to make money. It's a lot harder to make money without putting things into space, so they have a lot of motivation to do so.
NASA is not organized very well. They require an enormous amount of people to accomplish very little in the way of results. This is because they are management-heavy and suffer from a lot of micromanagement from their bosses in government. SpaceX is, I presume, much better organized by virtue of being a small company which must succeed or die.
Given that the cell phone service doesn't get any cheaper if you bring your own phone, getting the provider to subsidize your phone purchase is the smart financial move.
It amazes me just how bad the government is at finance. They routinely make boneheaded financial moves (saving a dollar today by spending ten dollars tomorrow, etc.) that no individual or family would ever make.
Let's imagine you're working on some kind of open source project, like a program which draws really cool pictures of bumble bees. And for some reason, a giant government agency decides that bumble bee pictures are critical to their success. They drop $10 million on your lap to make your bumble bee picture drawing program into exactly what they need.
Six months later, your program is somehow no further along than it was. Every working hour has been tied up doing paperwork, reports, meetings. Your work area is aswarm with government suits, each one with a different list of things to be checked off. You begin to wonder if your bumble bee program will ever make any more forward progress.
Now why, exactly, would you wish this fate upon a company you appear to like?
Re:More than scientific learning
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
Your logic is just as bad as that of the current crop of doomsayers.
The failure of the Earth to be destroyed by this machine has absolutely no bearing on the danger of whatever might next cause concern.
For example, you pick up a rubber axe and go to throw it at me and I shout Stop! but you still throw it, and it doesn't hurt me. Then you pick up a real axe. Does the fact that I was wrong about the first one mean I should just shut up about the second one?
I'm not saying there was reason to believe that the LHC would destroy the Earth. (There wasn't.) Nor that the next big thing would do so. (It probably won't. Certainly won't if it's just a bigger particle accelerator.) But that doesn't mean that the entire concept of "doomsaying" is inherently wrong.
Remember, you have to be right every time, they only have to be right once.
What exactly is the difference between using compatibility libraries and doing a "real" port? EA was making horrible, horrible Mac ports since long before any compatibility libraries were around.
So people with computer trouble that causes them to reinstall Windows more than three times in a row (and works well enough that they re-install Spore before it dies) get kicked in the pants?
I really don't understand this mindset. I write software for a living. The first thing I think about whenever I consider any such "protection" feature is how it will affect my customers. If the effect is that of virtually kicking them in the nuts for being my customer, I don't do it. Kicking them in the nuts while they're having lots of problems with their computer is just adding insult to injury.
As I understand the word, "silence" would only include being told to "shut up" if the person doing the telling had some power over you. For example, having your mother tell you to shut up means you are being silenced. Having some random stranger on the interwebs tell you to shut up is not.
This was the point I was trying to make. This person has no power over you, and thus you are not, in fact, being silenced. Your protest is therefore weird and pointless.
It's because movie quality (and I mean visual/production quality, not how good the script is or whatever) is like server uptime: each additional nine costs you ten times as much.
Want a server that's up 90% of the time? Easy, cheap, costs you practically nothing! Want a movie that has 90% of the quality of a Hollywood movie? Easy, cheap, costs you practically nothing!
Now you want a server that's up 99% of the time. Suddenly we're talking substantially more money. You want a movie that's 99% Hollywood, likewise.
And now you want a server that's not down for more than three seconds a year. You want a movie whose visual quality is indistinguishable from Hollywood in every way. Get prepared to write seven or eight figures on that check.
I'm not totally familiar with the Windows EULA, but wouldn't that policy simply be how you obtain the refund, not whether you are actually entitled to one? I mean, I thought that the EULA said quite simply that if you don't agree to the EULA then you can return the software for a refund, end of story. The manufacturer may be able to decide how you do that (call and read them a number versus physically mailing them the discs or whatever) but I don't think that they can decide that instead of your $100 they will send you some plastic and call it even.
I still don't understand. What are you proposing that we do about this problem you're discussing? Submitting stuff to the UN and performing independent research won't do anything to prevent the clueless from taking an active role in policy.
Sounds like you ought to buy the Windows one, get a refund for the bundled Windows install, and then install Ubuntu on your own. Ought to come out really cheap that way!
Slashdot Mirror
And when DailyKos shows up on basic cable and a good chunk of the public-facing TVs out there, that comparison will make sense.
A major problem with people is that a lot of them think that "fair" means "equal".
And you trust AT&T to keep your data safe?
If you're using an unencrypted connection for anything important then you're asking for trouble. Doesn't matter what kind of network you're using.
And "$100 less" doesn't make much sense to me. The Touch costs $30 more than the iPhone if you don't count the subscription, and about $1800 less than the iPhone if you do. What sort of accounting makes it cost $100 less?
There's nothing particularly special about the iPhone as a phone. What it has going for it is the non-phone stuff.
There only difference between an iPhone and purchasing a regular cell phone and an iPod Touch together is that the latter can't get on the web when you're out in the middle of nowhere. But if you only access the internet when you're around a wifi network then you lose nothing by simply having a separate phone.
Apple has not rejected three apps, they have pulled three apps. They are almost certainly rejecting a lot of apps, and those three are ones which slipped through their checks and then were caught after showing up in the store later on.
And comparing it to other mobile providers misses the point. The others suck worse, yep. It's like brushing off American human rights abuses by saying that things are worse in North Korea. It's true, but a completely pointless thing to say.
Let's instead compare it to something that's actually good, like developing for Mac OS X. There, I can download the tools for free, build and test on the deployment platform, and distribute my product to anyone who cares to obtain it all without having to get any kind of "approval" from Big Brother Apple. I don't see why the iPhone couldn't work the same way, but Apple decided they'd rather have total control.
Yeah, right. I don't know anyone who hasn't purchased an iPhone specifically because you can't install arbitrary software on it. Meanwhile the number of people I know who have purchased iPhones is far beyond my ability to count on my fingers and toes.
I'm as pro-open-platform as the next guy. I hate the fact that the iPhone is so closed, and I really wish Apple would open it up. But let's not get deluded into thinking that other people share this concern. The thing is an enormous success and nobody outside of a few fanatics even notices the fact that you can't develop for it without Apple's permission.
But the warning applies to everybody, and the manager should know this. So why should I make a special effort to point out an obvious fact that applies to every single person?
"Feel" is a useless measurement. Time it with a clock if you want a meaningful number. If your goal is to just go with whatever feels nicest to you then certainly you shouldn't bother, but you should realize that this doesn't mean you'll be using the app that's actually faster.
If they instead put effort into making their JavaScript interpreter properly asynchronous, not only would JS not freeze other tabs but it would also not freeze the same tab that it's running in.
It's not really a question of intelligence so much as motivation and organization.
NASA's goal is not to launch things into space. Their goal is to obtain greater funding and employ people. Launching things into space is just a technique for doing that. Lately they seem to have discovered that merely preparing to launch things into space works nearly as well for accomplishing their goals, so they don't have to actually launch very much.
SpaceX's goal is, of course, to make money. It's a lot harder to make money without putting things into space, so they have a lot of motivation to do so.
NASA is not organized very well. They require an enormous amount of people to accomplish very little in the way of results. This is because they are management-heavy and suffer from a lot of micromanagement from their bosses in government. SpaceX is, I presume, much better organized by virtue of being a small company which must succeed or die.
Given that the cell phone service doesn't get any cheaper if you bring your own phone, getting the provider to subsidize your phone purchase is the smart financial move.
Individuals who file for bankruptcy generally don't have the power to collect revenue at the point of a gun.
Ah yes, the fallacy of the sunk cost.
It amazes me just how bad the government is at finance. They routinely make boneheaded financial moves (saving a dollar today by spending ten dollars tomorrow, etc.) that no individual or family would ever make.
Let's imagine you're working on some kind of open source project, like a program which draws really cool pictures of bumble bees. And for some reason, a giant government agency decides that bumble bee pictures are critical to their success. They drop $10 million on your lap to make your bumble bee picture drawing program into exactly what they need.
Six months later, your program is somehow no further along than it was. Every working hour has been tied up doing paperwork, reports, meetings. Your work area is aswarm with government suits, each one with a different list of things to be checked off. You begin to wonder if your bumble bee program will ever make any more forward progress.
Now why, exactly, would you wish this fate upon a company you appear to like?
Your logic is just as bad as that of the current crop of doomsayers.
The failure of the Earth to be destroyed by this machine has absolutely no bearing on the danger of whatever might next cause concern.
For example, you pick up a rubber axe and go to throw it at me and I shout Stop! but you still throw it, and it doesn't hurt me. Then you pick up a real axe. Does the fact that I was wrong about the first one mean I should just shut up about the second one?
I'm not saying there was reason to believe that the LHC would destroy the Earth. (There wasn't.) Nor that the next big thing would do so. (It probably won't. Certainly won't if it's just a bigger particle accelerator.) But that doesn't mean that the entire concept of "doomsaying" is inherently wrong.
Remember, you have to be right every time, they only have to be right once.
What exactly is the difference between using compatibility libraries and doing a "real" port? EA was making horrible, horrible Mac ports since long before any compatibility libraries were around.
So people with computer trouble that causes them to reinstall Windows more than three times in a row (and works well enough that they re-install Spore before it dies) get kicked in the pants?
I really don't understand this mindset. I write software for a living. The first thing I think about whenever I consider any such "protection" feature is how it will affect my customers. If the effect is that of virtually kicking them in the nuts for being my customer, I don't do it. Kicking them in the nuts while they're having lots of problems with their computer is just adding insult to injury.
Well, uh, yeah. In one instance you are still free to speak. In the other, you are not. Seems like a worthy distinction to me!
As I understand the word, "silence" would only include being told to "shut up" if the person doing the telling had some power over you. For example, having your mother tell you to shut up means you are being silenced. Having some random stranger on the interwebs tell you to shut up is not.
This was the point I was trying to make. This person has no power over you, and thus you are not, in fact, being silenced. Your protest is therefore weird and pointless.
It's because movie quality (and I mean visual/production quality, not how good the script is or whatever) is like server uptime: each additional nine costs you ten times as much.
Want a server that's up 90% of the time? Easy, cheap, costs you practically nothing! Want a movie that has 90% of the quality of a Hollywood movie? Easy, cheap, costs you practically nothing!
Now you want a server that's up 99% of the time. Suddenly we're talking substantially more money. You want a movie that's 99% Hollywood, likewise.
And now you want a server that's not down for more than three seconds a year. You want a movie whose visual quality is indistinguishable from Hollywood in every way. Get prepared to write seven or eight figures on that check.
I'm not totally familiar with the Windows EULA, but wouldn't that policy simply be how you obtain the refund, not whether you are actually entitled to one? I mean, I thought that the EULA said quite simply that if you don't agree to the EULA then you can return the software for a refund, end of story. The manufacturer may be able to decide how you do that (call and read them a number versus physically mailing them the discs or whatever) but I don't think that they can decide that instead of your $100 they will send you some plastic and call it even.
Where can I get a $100 cell phone with wifi and a decent keyboard that doesn't require an expensive long-term contract?
Honest question. I'd love to know.
He's not silencing you (as evidenced by the fact that your post did not, in fact, disappear), just rightfully calling it crap.
The deliberate confusion of "censor" and "criticize" is the first resort of the thin-skinned idiot.
I still don't understand. What are you proposing that we do about this problem you're discussing? Submitting stuff to the UN and performing independent research won't do anything to prevent the clueless from taking an active role in policy.
Sounds like you ought to buy the Windows one, get a refund for the bundled Windows install, and then install Ubuntu on your own. Ought to come out really cheap that way!