BTW where I live (North America) 2009 was one of the coldest summers on record. I'm curious where all this supposed heat was? It certainly wasn't here.
And yet the global temperature was still higher than average:
There are lots of reasons people have lost faith in science, Chernobyl, Bhopal, Challenger, Vioxx, WMDs, Cold Fusion, and the general lack of trust in authority that has grown since the 60s.
With the exception of Cold Fusion, these examples seem to be reasons to not trust corporations and political expediency - nothing to do with science. As for Cold Fusion, I guess some optimists have been saying it's "ten years away" for 25 years and some frauds have been perpetrated but I don't see how science as a whole is painted with that brush.
And really there is no reason to blindly believe scientists or anyone else: it's kind of health to ask for proof, as long as you don't keep denying once you receive it.
Sure, but I think evolution is on pretty solid ground which makes about 40% of US citizens deniers and another 20% uninformed at best.
Incidentally, you blame corporations, but a lot of the anti-science movement corresponds to the anti-corporation movement as well: the anti-vaccine and anti-GMO propaganda isn't coming from corporations any more than the anti-evolutionists.
There are crack pots on both sides of most issues, but I think a lot of the anti-corparate based hysteria is a reaction to the fact that they have a pretty bad record when it comes to "science" effecting public safety. I'm all for holding their feet to the fire. On a final note, I think any anti-evolutionists that say they are "questioning authority" are delusional since they are typically "answering to a higher authority."
The median US citizen goes to school for 12 years. During that time, they all have to take at least one course on science. If after spending an entire course studying science (and probably many more than one class) they don't have an understanding of what science is and how it works, then I'd say the average US citizen has failed in their duty to become a rational and thinking being.
I think there are a couple of major issues with science education in the US. It's taught as a bunch of "facts" for the most part, especially biology and chemistry. My recollection is that the scientific method is mentioned in some introductory science class, you get a quiz with multiple choice answers or three blank lines for: observe, hypothesize, and experiment and you're done. Now it's time to memorize what ever level of physics is "age appropriate": newtonian, relativistic or quantum. Of course most people never get past Newtonian physics, then they hear vaguely about Relativity and Quantum Physics and hey, what do you know, those crazy scientist don't really know anything. Toss in people screaming "correlation isn't causation" and what do you know, you can't "prove" anything so my long held misconceptions are just as good as any... Asimov write's about this in The Relativity of Wrong.
The other issue is that while we supposedly have a separation of church and state [1], we tap dance around evolution in public schools so we don't offend people. Suddenly people think that God in the Gaps is a valid scientific theory - though so far "God did it" is a bit difficult to test. I mention this because I think many American's glib "it's just a theory" response to any scientific theory they don't like is reinforced by all the tap dancing around evolution.
If I were King, then most science education would be about the process of science, the attempt to approach the truth to the best of our ability, and the drive to continue to question and test theories to improve or replace them. Memorizing the atomic number of Iridium is almost pointless for most students and adults. Learning about how the atomic model changed over time and how useful the "wrong" models were seems much more relevant in understanding science.
Unfortunately, US education is focused on the "three R's" [2] and thinking (reasoning?) is not one of them.
[1] Yes, I know the words "wall of separation" are not in the Constitution but in a letter from Thomas Jefferson.
[2] Reading, writing and arithmetic - go figure.
It's because consumers rule that walled gardens will fail in the long term.
I don't think there is any evidence that Apple's "walled garden" has hurt Apple. There are some people that hate walled gardens, closed source, etc., but so far Apple is managing to build product's that millions of people not only like but many are passionate about. It's popular to dismiss "teh shiny", but a lot of work goes into that attention to detail.
Microsoft knows not to tell people "You can't install non-Microsoft applications on your computer."
Apple doesn't say that either, though I assume you are referring to Apple's approval process. Again, people are writing, publishing, downloading and buying iOS apps like crazy so I don't see how this is going to end in tears for Apple. And historically, Microsoft used to make it economically prohibitive for competing OSes to be pre-installed on PCs and that actually worked out great for them. Really. By the time they got taken to task for their behavior, they owned the PC market.
Problem is they are now falling behind, as the competition is able to come out with better products quicker - look at the Droid X.
The Droid X looks like a great device, but I don't think I'm the only person on the planet that will choose the iPhone 4 over it - walled garden and all. Why? Because the walled garden is not preventing me from getting anything I really want, including apps that I love. It doesn't matter that there are equivalents for most of them on Android devices for those of us that prefer the iPhone. And the specs where the Droid X beats the iPhone, I don't really care. I don't want anything that makes the phone physically bigger. In a year the iPhone 5 will beat the Droid X at some specs and then the whatever Y will beat out the iPhone 5.
One of those replaces both an iPhone and an iPad.
For some people. The iPhone is about the biggest device I want to put in my pocket and I think the iPad is a much better size for a tablet device. So apple sells me two devices and no Droid X for me. Not to pick on the Droid X, after all there are many Android devices to choose from which is great. My point is that all product/engineering decisions are compromises and different people care about different issues. I see no evidence that the so called walled garden is a universal deal breaker. Maybe some day it will be, but I doubt it.
I disagree, I think it's simple and elegant. A stack with the most recently run app always moving to the top (left) makes sense to me and I've found switching between the handful of apps I'm using during any given period really efficient. Any app I'm not actively switching back to naturally falls away as recently viewed apps move in front of it.
If you don't delete them manually, eventually all your apps are going to appear there, and what the hell is the use of that?
It really doesn't matter how deep the stack goes (though I assume there is some arbitrary limit). It's not as if they add any visual clutter since you have to actively scroll to see them and as mentioned above, if you didn't use an app recently the natural thing to do is to use it's icon on the home page. It's only confusing if you think you have to manually manage each app's state. But the whole point behind Apple's limited multi-tasking and UI is that the end user should not have to manage an app's state.
There needs to be a way of quitting apps without adding them to the bar.
And there is the rub. You don't typically "quit" an iOS app, you switch away from it. Whether the app actually exits or not is determined by the app and iOS. You can choose to force the app to exit, but there is rarely any need (so far the only reason I've forced an app to close was to see how that changed it's behavior next time I switched to it.)
How dare you say anything semi-positive about Apple! As if anyone reading a "news for nerds" site would be interested in development environments, well engineered APIs, or such. Anyway, you must be lying cause I heard that only people that don't understand computers like Apple products. So if you appreciate Apple's development environment and APIs, you can't possibly be a programmer and therefore you haven't worked on any apps.
The original question that got lost in the chain of blogs and summaries was that if you are a two car family where are both driven 100 miles per week, would you save more fuel if you:
replace your 10 mpg SUV with a 20 mpg SUV, or
replace your 33 mpg car with a 50 mpg car
While a bit contrived, it is a valid question for many Americans [1], and typically they get the answer wrong.
[1] Yes I know America is a continent (or two, depending on where you were schooled), but saying "citizens of the United States of America" is a bit absurd.
Unfortunately, the slashdot summary of the blog paraphrasing of the Duke study failed to spell out the real question which is: Given a two car family that have (and presumably needs) both an SUV and a commuter and both are driven 100 miles per week. Does it save more fuel to replace the 10 mpg SUV with a 20 mpg SUV, or the 33 mpg commuter with a 50 mpg commuter. Most people pick the wrong combination. Here's an example online test: MPG Illusion
Not everything needs to be stickered to the damn car...
True, but the poorly written blog was summarizing a study that showed that multi-vehicle families tended to use MPG incorrectly when choosing what car to upgrade. I'm not convinced that re-labling MPG to G/100M would solve the problem, but bringing attention to the misconception is worthwhile.
... I'm sure you friendly neighborhood car salesman would be happy to give you the sheet that explains all this information about the car too.
I'm pretty sure he's the last guy you should trust as his interest is that you buy a car from him, preferably the one that maximizes his commission.
... but I am very curious to know what specifically makes iTunes "suck so bad"? I ask because I use iTunes all the time as my primary music library manager and player, and find it easy to use and very powerful.
It's an honest question, I'm not trying to start a flamewar.
-dZ.
Your question is currently modded as a troll. I'd love to hear the logic behind that...
Personally, I also like iTunes (for OS X) so I can't really answer your question. Sometimes figuring out how to do something outside the mainstream use cases (like multiple music libraries) takes a little research. But giving how well everything works for how I want use iTunes, it's easily worth the trades off.
As too the GP's assertion that it's mostly about preventing unapproved apps on Apple products, maybe there is some truth in that. Apple likes to control user experience. Of course, HTML5 and Javascript applications run without any restrictions. And in my experience Flash kills battery life, sucks memory and destroys responsiveness on laptops, so I don't see those as totally specious arguments on Apple's part...
Re:Nobody gives a flying flock of birds
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 1
Well, if you can't get yourself to just skip articles you don't want to read, try the following.
Type "apple" in the Other Terms to Exclude text box
That way you won't add to the page views of Apple articles. Page views incentivize more Apple articles, so the only way to help reduce the number of Apple articles is to not read and comment on them.
Re:Apple has made Microsoft look "open".
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 1
I am a developer and the reality is that I can put anything on my phone and actually 100 of my friends phones that I want. I will keep your mindless rant in the front of my thoughts as I collect my app check this month.
To rephrase a response later in the thread, the MS/Linux fanbois must be out in force for the parent to be modded as a troll (but apparently the GP saying a big "Fuck You" to anyone that supports Apple is insightful.)
Re:Like Woz didn't move on a LONG time ago?
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 1
The history of the personal computer is a long series of evolutionary steps, so you're right Apple did not "create" the personal computer.
But if we're going to be punctilious, the PET was announced and demonstrated in January of 1977 but you couldn't buy one until October. The Apple ][ went on sale to the public in June of 1977, before the PET and was a follow-up to the Apple-I. The Apple-I was a semi-kit computer that was available to the public in June of 1976. The TRS-80 was also available in 1977 shortly after the PET.
I'm not sure what criteria wikipedia is using for "first" complete personal computer. For a measly $16,000 you could buy a Xerox Alto in 1973, or so. But the Apple ][ certainly seems to be first to market that for "the masses" by a few months. The PET was more popular in its first year or two of production, but if that's the criteria than the TRS-80 kicked both of their asses.
Just sayin'
Woz is laughing all the way to the bank...
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This is life, not a freakin' soap opera. Woz owns iPhones, he owns an iPad, he has iPods and macbooks and probably at least one of everything Apple ever made. Oh yeah, and he has a bootload of Apple stock that keeps him rich as God. Obviously he's bitter and cries himself to sleep every night.
If that's what losing an epic geek battle looks like, bring it on...
Re:The difference being...
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 1
All originally black and white long after color was the norm.
My recollection is that black and white displays were much crisper and color was more costly. In the early to mid-80s color monitors were sort of fuzzy - even high end systems like Apollo Workstations. I actually preferred working on monochromatic systems back then. I assume the quality/price trade of is why Jobs choose black and white systems. But being color blind would explain all the black turtle necks...
Slashdot Mirror
1998 was a spike, not a reversal in the trend.
BTW where I live (North America) 2009 was one of the coldest summers on record. I'm curious where all this supposed heat was? It certainly wasn't here.
And yet the global temperature was still higher than average:
June's 2009 Blended Land and Sea Surface Temperatures: +0.62C above the 20th century average
July's 2009 Blended Land and Sea Surface Temperatures: 0.57C above the 20th century average of 15.8C
August's 2009 Blended Land and Sea Surface Temperatures: 0.59C above the 20th century average of 15.6C
BTW where I live (North America) 2009 was one of the coldest summers on record. I'm curious where all this supposed heat was? It certainly wasn't here. http://www.examiner.com/x-3420-Cleveland-Weather-Examiner~y2009m9d10-2009-Coldest-US-summer-in-recent-history-300-lowtemp-records-set
Visiting India
There are lots of reasons people have lost faith in science, Chernobyl, Bhopal, Challenger, Vioxx, WMDs, Cold Fusion, and the general lack of trust in authority that has grown since the 60s.
With the exception of Cold Fusion, these examples seem to be reasons to not trust corporations and political expediency - nothing to do with science. As for Cold Fusion, I guess some optimists have been saying it's "ten years away" for 25 years and some frauds have been perpetrated but I don't see how science as a whole is painted with that brush.
And really there is no reason to blindly believe scientists or anyone else: it's kind of health to ask for proof, as long as you don't keep denying once you receive it.
Sure, but I think evolution is on pretty solid ground which makes about 40% of US citizens deniers and another 20% uninformed at best.
Incidentally, you blame corporations, but a lot of the anti-science movement corresponds to the anti-corporation movement as well: the anti-vaccine and anti-GMO propaganda isn't coming from corporations any more than the anti-evolutionists.
There are crack pots on both sides of most issues, but I think a lot of the anti-corparate based hysteria is a reaction to the fact that they have a pretty bad record when it comes to "science" effecting public safety. I'm all for holding their feet to the fire. On a final note, I think any anti-evolutionists that say they are "questioning authority" are delusional since they are typically "answering to a higher authority."
Many scientists need to realize that their goals, ideals, and ethical standards may not be universal.
To do a better job explaining science, or so they shut up? I'm not sure I get your point.
The median US citizen goes to school for 12 years. During that time, they all have to take at least one course on science. If after spending an entire course studying science (and probably many more than one class) they don't have an understanding of what science is and how it works, then I'd say the average US citizen has failed in their duty to become a rational and thinking being.
I think there are a couple of major issues with science education in the US. It's taught as a bunch of "facts" for the most part, especially biology and chemistry. My recollection is that the scientific method is mentioned in some introductory science class, you get a quiz with multiple choice answers or three blank lines for: observe, hypothesize, and experiment and you're done. Now it's time to memorize what ever level of physics is "age appropriate": newtonian, relativistic or quantum. Of course most people never get past Newtonian physics, then they hear vaguely about Relativity and Quantum Physics and hey, what do you know, those crazy scientist don't really know anything. Toss in people screaming "correlation isn't causation" and what do you know, you can't "prove" anything so my long held misconceptions are just as good as any... Asimov write's about this in The Relativity of Wrong.
The other issue is that while we supposedly have a separation of church and state [1], we tap dance around evolution in public schools so we don't offend people. Suddenly people think that God in the Gaps is a valid scientific theory - though so far "God did it" is a bit difficult to test. I mention this because I think many American's glib "it's just a theory" response to any scientific theory they don't like is reinforced by all the tap dancing around evolution.
If I were King, then most science education would be about the process of science, the attempt to approach the truth to the best of our ability, and the drive to continue to question and test theories to improve or replace them. Memorizing the atomic number of Iridium is almost pointless for most students and adults. Learning about how the atomic model changed over time and how useful the "wrong" models were seems much more relevant in understanding science.
Unfortunately, US education is focused on the "three R's" [2] and thinking (reasoning?) is not one of them.
[1] Yes, I know the words "wall of separation" are not in the Constitution but in a letter from Thomas Jefferson.
[2] Reading, writing and arithmetic - go figure.
Just wrong. ;-)
It's because consumers rule that walled gardens will fail in the long term.
I don't think there is any evidence that Apple's "walled garden" has hurt Apple. There are some people that hate walled gardens, closed source, etc., but so far Apple is managing to build product's that millions of people not only like but many are passionate about. It's popular to dismiss "teh shiny", but a lot of work goes into that attention to detail.
Microsoft knows not to tell people "You can't install non-Microsoft applications on your computer."
Apple doesn't say that either, though I assume you are referring to Apple's approval process. Again, people are writing, publishing, downloading and buying iOS apps like crazy so I don't see how this is going to end in tears for Apple. And historically, Microsoft used to make it economically prohibitive for competing OSes to be pre-installed on PCs and that actually worked out great for them. Really. By the time they got taken to task for their behavior, they owned the PC market.
Problem is they are now falling behind, as the competition is able to come out with better products quicker - look at the Droid X.
The Droid X looks like a great device, but I don't think I'm the only person on the planet that will choose the iPhone 4 over it - walled garden and all. Why? Because the walled garden is not preventing me from getting anything I really want, including apps that I love. It doesn't matter that there are equivalents for most of them on Android devices for those of us that prefer the iPhone. And the specs where the Droid X beats the iPhone, I don't really care. I don't want anything that makes the phone physically bigger. In a year the iPhone 5 will beat the Droid X at some specs and then the whatever Y will beat out the iPhone 5.
One of those replaces both an iPhone and an iPad.
For some people. The iPhone is about the biggest device I want to put in my pocket and I think the iPad is a much better size for a tablet device. So apple sells me two devices and no Droid X for me. Not to pick on the Droid X, after all there are many Android devices to choose from which is great. My point is that all product/engineering decisions are compromises and different people care about different issues. I see no evidence that the so called walled garden is a universal deal breaker. Maybe some day it will be, but I doubt it.
It's just not a well-designed feature.
I disagree, I think it's simple and elegant. A stack with the most recently run app always moving to the top (left) makes sense to me and I've found switching between the handful of apps I'm using during any given period really efficient. Any app I'm not actively switching back to naturally falls away as recently viewed apps move in front of it.
If you don't delete them manually, eventually all your apps are going to appear there, and what the hell is the use of that?
It really doesn't matter how deep the stack goes (though I assume there is some arbitrary limit). It's not as if they add any visual clutter since you have to actively scroll to see them and as mentioned above, if you didn't use an app recently the natural thing to do is to use it's icon on the home page. It's only confusing if you think you have to manually manage each app's state. But the whole point behind Apple's limited multi-tasking and UI is that the end user should not have to manage an app's state.
There needs to be a way of quitting apps without adding them to the bar.
And there is the rub. You don't typically "quit" an iOS app, you switch away from it. Whether the app actually exits or not is determined by the app and iOS. You can choose to force the app to exit, but there is rarely any need (so far the only reason I've forced an app to close was to see how that changed it's behavior next time I switched to it.)
Wait until you need to talk to something that cares about timing.
Like comedians?
The answer to life, the universe and everything?
42.
How dare you say anything semi-positive about Apple! As if anyone reading a "news for nerds" site would be interested in development environments, well engineered APIs, or such. Anyway, you must be lying cause I heard that only people that don't understand computers like Apple products. So if you appreciate Apple's development environment and APIs, you can't possibly be a programmer and therefore you haven't worked on any apps.
The original question that got lost in the chain of blogs and summaries was that if you are a two car family where are both driven 100 miles per week, would you save more fuel if you:
While a bit contrived, it is a valid question for many Americans [1], and typically they get the answer wrong.
[1] Yes I know America is a continent (or two, depending on where you were schooled), but saying "citizens of the United States of America" is a bit absurd.
Unfortunately, the slashdot summary of the blog paraphrasing of the Duke study failed to spell out the real question which is: Given a two car family that have (and presumably needs) both an SUV and a commuter and both are driven 100 miles per week. Does it save more fuel to replace the 10 mpg SUV with a 20 mpg SUV, or the 33 mpg commuter with a 50 mpg commuter. Most people pick the wrong combination. Here's an example online test: MPG Illusion
Not everything needs to be stickered to the damn car...
True, but the poorly written blog was summarizing a study that showed that multi-vehicle families tended to use MPG incorrectly when choosing what car to upgrade. I'm not convinced that re-labling MPG to G/100M would solve the problem, but bringing attention to the misconception is worthwhile.
... I'm sure you friendly neighborhood car salesman would be happy to give you the sheet that explains all this information about the car too.
I'm pretty sure he's the last guy you should trust as his interest is that you buy a car from him, preferably the one that maximizes his commission.
Let me help you with that...
...and if you want to invade there's an app for that.
There really is an app for that.
The iPad is just horrendously horrible for this due to Steve's obsession with locking it down and removing all the standard ports from it.
Apple iPad Camera Connection Kit: $29
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=connect+camera+to+ipad: priceless
... but I am very curious to know what specifically makes iTunes "suck so bad"? I ask because I use iTunes all the time as my primary music library manager and player, and find it easy to use and very powerful.
It's an honest question, I'm not trying to start a flamewar.
-dZ.
Your question is currently modded as a troll. I'd love to hear the logic behind that...
Personally, I also like iTunes (for OS X) so I can't really answer your question. Sometimes figuring out how to do something outside the mainstream use cases (like multiple music libraries) takes a little research. But giving how well everything works for how I want use iTunes, it's easily worth the trades off.
As too the GP's assertion that it's mostly about preventing unapproved apps on Apple products, maybe there is some truth in that. Apple likes to control user experience. Of course, HTML5 and Javascript applications run without any restrictions. And in my experience Flash kills battery life, sucks memory and destroys responsiveness on laptops, so I don't see those as totally specious arguments on Apple's part...
Well, if you can't get yourself to just skip articles you don't want to read, try the following.
That way you won't add to the page views of Apple articles. Page views incentivize more Apple articles, so the only way to help reduce the number of Apple articles is to not read and comment on them.
I am a developer and the reality is that I can put anything on my phone and actually 100 of my friends phones that I want. I will keep your mindless rant in the front of my thoughts as I collect my app check this month.
To rephrase a response later in the thread, the MS/Linux fanbois must be out in force for the parent to be modded as a troll (but apparently the GP saying a big "Fuck You" to anyone that supports Apple is insightful.)
The history of the personal computer is a long series of evolutionary steps, so you're right Apple did not "create" the personal computer.
But if we're going to be punctilious, the PET was announced and demonstrated in January of 1977 but you couldn't buy one until October. The Apple ][ went on sale to the public in June of 1977, before the PET and was a follow-up to the Apple-I. The Apple-I was a semi-kit computer that was available to the public in June of 1976. The TRS-80 was also available in 1977 shortly after the PET.
I'm not sure what criteria wikipedia is using for "first" complete personal computer. For a measly $16,000 you could buy a Xerox Alto in 1973, or so. But the Apple ][ certainly seems to be first to market that for "the masses" by a few months. The PET was more popular in its first year or two of production, but if that's the criteria than the TRS-80 kicked both of their asses.
Just sayin'
This is life, not a freakin' soap opera. Woz owns iPhones, he owns an iPad, he has iPods and macbooks and probably at least one of everything Apple ever made. Oh yeah, and he has a bootload of Apple stock that keeps him rich as God. Obviously he's bitter and cries himself to sleep every night. If that's what losing an epic geek battle looks like, bring it on...
All originally black and white long after color was the norm.
My recollection is that black and white displays were much crisper and color was more costly. In the early to mid-80s color monitors were sort of fuzzy - even high end systems like Apollo Workstations. I actually preferred working on monochromatic systems back then. I assume the quality/price trade of is why Jobs choose black and white systems. But being color blind would explain all the black turtle necks...
Why the reboot?
To install Linux.