I'm sometimes frustrated at times by the prevailing/. opinions that (i) bosses suck
Well, it's a truism - you only think of your "one-up" as a boss if they don't have other redeeming qualities. (Put another way, you wouldn't think of them as The Boss if they pulled their weight.)
The trouble is that I can't rule out the first case either. I think it's reasonable to think that the guy really does want Christianity established in the US, so if he got to SCOTUS and Justice Kennedy decided to go along with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito to allow it, he wouldn't be disappointed.
I think he's filing it as a win-win: if it somehow passes, he's The Hero. If it gets struck down, he's The Martyr. Either way, he's scored points with his constituency.
That is changing, at least in Alberta - Shaw and Telus both supply internet here, and have for over a decade.
What's new (and interesting to me) is that each is pushing rather aggressively into each other's monopolies - Shaw got into the phone business years ago (if memory serves, they made a huge push during the last Telus strike and got a nice foothold), and Telus started offering TV a year or two back (and judging from the every-other-week phone calls, is pushing very hard to make inroads on the TV side).
We're actually a bit lucky in Alberta - Shaw and Telus have varying quality depending on what neighborhood you're in (my Shaw service is superior, but my parents get better speed/reliability with Telus). From what I'm seeing they're actually having to (gasp) compete for service.
Additionally, in the Edmonton area there's a few smaller players who are trying to get into the Wifi end of things. I don't live in any of their footprints, so can't speak for quality, though.
If Congress had not passed a specific law granting local governments the authority to grant exceptions to anti-trust laws, you would not see cable monopolies, just as if the Federal government had not stepped in, there would never have been telephone monopolies.
You also wouldn't have seen cable or phone service, either.
I've always presumed that they use the word "Pirate" to poke at the idea that illegal copying is somehow equatable to high-seas violence. (As opposed to, say, "copying your neighbor's homework").
I think the next step is to apply the same overbearing verbage to those who are trying to screw over the consumers. I think "rights rapist" has a nice ring to it.
And yes, I am fully aware that rape is a serious and not-funny crime. Kind of like actual piracy.
And by "elsewhere", we mean "far away from traditional journalism".
I have friends in the business (both reporters and editors), and it's an industry designed to chew people up and spit them out. Apparently there are enough journalism graduates coming through the system that you could fire everyone and replace them every other year. So unless you manage to become one of the few "name brand" columnists, the paper considers you completely and utterly disposable.
Just so we're all clear, telemarketing companies are scum of the earth. The people calling you are just trying to do their job (and aren't getting paid much for it).
I'm all for wasting their time (as I understand it, they get paid by the hour, so "Maria" in India doesn't get hurt by us messing with her, just the employer), but I don't think many of them are bad people.
Besides, the successful snakeoil salesmen will quickly move on to used cars and such anyway, so odds are your call is from someone reading a script.
Re:Oh good! The trolls are out in full force!
on
iOS 4 Releases Today
·
· Score: 1
If by "flexibility" you mean "you may buy the apps we approve, or the apps we approve, and only from our store so we get a cut" then yeah Apple's phones are just spiffy. So why was Google Voice blocked for such a long time again -- was that because of popular demand by the users? Why is it so hard to get a good solid backed-by-facts explanation for why a particular app is rejected from the App Store again (i.e., quote the exact section of the ToS or similar that it violates)? Nothing fascist to see here, please move along.
Couple points here:
"You can only buy the stuff we approve" has been around for decades - anyone who owns a video game console is used to that setup.
Any developer who complains about their app not being approved didn't read the contract - I signed up as a developer (not the least reason is that I can now install whatever the heck I want on my machines), and the contract is perfectly clear on the point: Apple decides if you get into the app store, and they can reject you for any (or no) reason whatsoever. It's astoundingly clear on that.
I have an iPad and a netbook (my wife has pretty much commandeered the netbook, though), and the functionality is pretty much the same for normal use (check mail, surf web, light document work). Mentally I've filed the iPad as the "Mac netbook".
The issue is about restricting developers by the use of "Trusted Computing" and DRM, not about whether it can play non DRM stuff. Can you make it play WebM? No, because Steve Jobs hates it, you cannot. That's the freedom that's being lost.
Question 1: Why do I need my iPod/iPad to play WebM?
Question 2: What the heck *is* WebM?
Question 3: Why should I care that it can't play WebM? I don't use it, I don't even know what it is, and it's not part of the feature set I was looking for when I bought the device. My TV, DVD player, computers, and microwave don't play WebM either.
My Apple devices do what I need them to do (play media). The tradeoff between ease of use and reliability vs tinkerability is a known one, and one I made knowingly. You may weigh the benefits differently and make a different decision, and that's OK.
(In the meantime, why hasn't someone done the Open Source microwave?)
to use a project launch as leverage is to show that you're manipulative and not a team player.
Agreed. Always use project launches to demonstrate a lack of team playing. Walking out the door three days before a release really gets the point across.
What's this "team" you speak of? This is business we're talking about here - your job is to maximize profit. Not just for the company, but for yourself. Team spirit is great and all, but that doesn't put the kids through school. Your company will never trade profits for "good feelings" - why should you?
1) Just because you are in public does not automatically strip citizens of all expectations of privacy.
Well, if he can see you with the bionic eye*, then he can see you with his natural one. Thus, he was already seeing you - it's just the method that's changed. (As well as "hard drive" substituting for "memory").
2) What makes you think he would use his "eye" only in "public"?
Again, see (1) - if he's in the room, it's reasonable to expect that he's seeing it. If you don't want him to see it, then kick him out of the room. (Contrast with hidden cameras, where you don't know that someone is watching.)
3) An extreme example- so you think it is OK if someone followed you around every step you take out of your residence and record what you do, who you associate with, where you go, and record all this information and make it all publicly, forever?
Apparently we do - that's what paparazzi do for a living, after all.
4) Define what is "public". In my car with him? In a restaurant booth with him? In a public restroom? In an elevator alone or with just him? In my back yard? In my front yard? In my garage with the garage door open?
I'd define it as "can I control who sees me" - The only one on your list I'd define as private is your back yard (assuming you've put a fence up). Everywhere else, you could be seen by any Joe walking by.
To throw a counter-argument to you, what happens if/when they figure out how to read memories? (i.e. convert human memory to data). Now *everyone* can potentially record everything...
Only so far as the guy has an actual recording of what he "sees", versus just his memories.
I'd love to have that ability, myself (not enough to gouge out an eye, mind) - the ability to rewind my day and remember where I put the car keys? Priceless.
(For a fictional view on this, try the Hominids/Humans/Hybrids series by Robert Sawyer. Short version for purposes of converstion: everyone has their own personal recording of their life, which leads to near-zero crime, since every witness has a video record of the incident, and any accused can prove their innocence by showing they were somewhere else.)
I was having that exact same thought: what will the cops do when this sort of thing becomes "standard issue"?
Yes, for right now it's more a toy than anything (although as a filmmaker, I could see some use for this in documentaries.)
But once they figure out how to pass that video back to the user (making it a true replacement eye), the cops are in a sticky situation - yes, it's streaming live. But are they willing to blind a man to prevent it?
Which brings up an interesting question - does your uncle have an objection to people filming him on the job?
I don't think every cop is corrupt. But I think that when you consider that every cop has the means and authority to dispense violence, it makes sense that there's an impartial (or at least as impartial as possible) recording of what they do. As much for their protection as anyone elses.
Side thought for you Americans - don't you elect police chiefs? Why not ask them their position on unaccountable cops, and why they support hiding their activities from the public at large.
That part isn't part of the story. Just as how we didn't see the full day-by-day story of everything prior to the start of the plot. We see snippets, but not (for instance) why Jack decides to become a doctor, his residency, his first date...
Let me get this straight, you're using the frequency of an evolutionary based behavior (pack dominance) that requires no intelligence as an indicator for the frequency of something that requires a fair amount of intelligence and does nothing for the aggressor?
I just want to make sure I understand the frame.
The frame is, bullies beat up geeks. History has shown that even when the geeks fight back, they get punished for fighting (since they don't have the skills to deal violence without getting caught).
So, if you're a geek, and you're looking for some payback, why would you expect them not to use the abilities and tools at their disposal?
Ex: guy shows up for the school track meet, and for some reason they're signed up for all women's events...
At every school I went to students just signed out books. School libraries themselves are usually quite useless, and an expensive high-tech upgrade like this one is just a vanity project.
Generally because for some perverse reason it's easier for a library to get funding for high-tech security systems and multimedia gadgetry than it is to get funding for actual books.
At the iPad level, there are bigger and more useful apps which could be more of a lock-in factor, but there isn't much lock-in at the iPod and iPhone level. Hell, there will probably be a dozen comments in this story about slashdotters who switched from an iPhone to android.
On a simpler note, could you not accuse *any* OS of this sort of "lock-in"? It's not like you can switch from XBox to PS3 and bring all your games across.
People move their music libraries all the time. Buy a newer hard drive, move the library to it.
Well, I see two solutions here:
One: if both drives are active at the same moment (you're adding a drive without removing the old one), just change the iTunes library folder to the new location and hit "consolidate" - iTunes will copy everything over for you.
Two: if you're replacing the drive, wouldn't it be likely the directory structure will stay the same?
As for the removable drives, I'd be curious to know how any other media player keeps up with a randomly changing fileset.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sometimes frustrated at times by the prevailing /. opinions that (i) bosses suck
Well, it's a truism - you only think of your "one-up" as a boss if they don't have other redeeming qualities. (Put another way, you wouldn't think of them as The Boss if they pulled their weight.)
The trouble is that I can't rule out the first case either. I think it's reasonable to think that the guy really does want Christianity established in the US, so if he got to SCOTUS and Justice Kennedy decided to go along with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito to allow it, he wouldn't be disappointed.
I think he's filing it as a win-win: if it somehow passes, he's The Hero. If it gets struck down, he's The Martyr. Either way, he's scored points with his constituency.
That is changing, at least in Alberta - Shaw and Telus both supply internet here, and have for over a decade.
What's new (and interesting to me) is that each is pushing rather aggressively into each other's monopolies - Shaw got into the phone business years ago (if memory serves, they made a huge push during the last Telus strike and got a nice foothold), and Telus started offering TV a year or two back (and judging from the every-other-week phone calls, is pushing very hard to make inroads on the TV side).
We're actually a bit lucky in Alberta - Shaw and Telus have varying quality depending on what neighborhood you're in (my Shaw service is superior, but my parents get better speed/reliability with Telus). From what I'm seeing they're actually having to (gasp) compete for service.
Additionally, in the Edmonton area there's a few smaller players who are trying to get into the Wifi end of things. I don't live in any of their footprints, so can't speak for quality, though.
If Congress had not passed a specific law granting local governments the authority to grant exceptions to anti-trust laws, you would not see cable monopolies, just as if the Federal government had not stepped in, there would never have been telephone monopolies.
You also wouldn't have seen cable or phone service, either.
I've always presumed that they use the word "Pirate" to poke at the idea that illegal copying is somehow equatable to high-seas violence. (As opposed to, say, "copying your neighbor's homework").
I think the next step is to apply the same overbearing verbage to those who are trying to screw over the consumers. I think "rights rapist" has a nice ring to it.
And yes, I am fully aware that rape is a serious and not-funny crime. Kind of like actual piracy.
And by "elsewhere", we mean "far away from traditional journalism".
I have friends in the business (both reporters and editors), and it's an industry designed to chew people up and spit them out. Apparently there are enough journalism graduates coming through the system that you could fire everyone and replace them every other year. So unless you manage to become one of the few "name brand" columnists, the paper considers you completely and utterly disposable.
These people are the scum of the earth
Just so we're all clear, telemarketing companies are scum of the earth. The people calling you are just trying to do their job (and aren't getting paid much for it).
I'm all for wasting their time (as I understand it, they get paid by the hour, so "Maria" in India doesn't get hurt by us messing with her, just the employer), but I don't think many of them are bad people.
Besides, the successful snakeoil salesmen will quickly move on to used cars and such anyway, so odds are your call is from someone reading a script.
If by "flexibility" you mean "you may buy the apps we approve, or the apps we approve, and only from our store so we get a cut" then yeah Apple's phones are just spiffy. So why was Google Voice blocked for such a long time again -- was that because of popular demand by the users? Why is it so hard to get a good solid backed-by-facts explanation for why a particular app is rejected from the App Store again (i.e., quote the exact section of the ToS or similar that it violates)? Nothing fascist to see here, please move along.
Couple points here:
"You can only buy the stuff we approve" has been around for decades - anyone who owns a video game console is used to that setup.
Any developer who complains about their app not being approved didn't read the contract - I signed up as a developer (not the least reason is that I can now install whatever the heck I want on my machines), and the contract is perfectly clear on the point: Apple decides if you get into the app store, and they can reject you for any (or no) reason whatsoever. It's astoundingly clear on that.
I have an iPad and a netbook (my wife has pretty much commandeered the netbook, though), and the functionality is pretty much the same for normal use (check mail, surf web, light document work). Mentally I've filed the iPad as the "Mac netbook".
The issue is about restricting developers by the use of "Trusted Computing" and DRM, not about whether it can play non DRM stuff. Can you make it play WebM? No, because Steve Jobs hates it, you cannot. That's the freedom that's being lost.
Question 1: Why do I need my iPod/iPad to play WebM?
Question 2: What the heck *is* WebM?
Question 3: Why should I care that it can't play WebM? I don't use it, I don't even know what it is, and it's not part of the feature set I was looking for when I bought the device. My TV, DVD player, computers, and microwave don't play WebM either.
My Apple devices do what I need them to do (play media). The tradeoff between ease of use and reliability vs tinkerability is a known one, and one I made knowingly. You may weigh the benefits differently and make a different decision, and that's OK.
(In the meantime, why hasn't someone done the Open Source microwave?)
to use a project launch as leverage is to show that you're manipulative and not a team player.
Agreed. Always use project launches to demonstrate a lack of team playing. Walking out the door three days before a release really gets the point across.
What's this "team" you speak of? This is business we're talking about here - your job is to maximize profit. Not just for the company, but for yourself. Team spirit is great and all, but that doesn't put the kids through school. Your company will never trade profits for "good feelings" - why should you?
1) Just because you are in public does not automatically strip citizens of all expectations of privacy.
Well, if he can see you with the bionic eye*, then he can see you with his natural one. Thus, he was already seeing you - it's just the method that's changed. (As well as "hard drive" substituting for "memory").
2) What makes you think he would use his "eye" only in "public"?
Again, see (1) - if he's in the room, it's reasonable to expect that he's seeing it. If you don't want him to see it, then kick him out of the room. (Contrast with hidden cameras, where you don't know that someone is watching.)
3) An extreme example- so you think it is OK if someone followed you around every step you take out of your residence and record what you do, who you associate with, where you go, and record all this information and make it all publicly, forever?
Apparently we do - that's what paparazzi do for a living, after all.
4) Define what is "public". In my car with him? In a restaurant booth with him? In a public restroom? In an elevator alone or with just him? In my back yard? In my front yard? In my garage with the garage door open?
I'd define it as "can I control who sees me" - The only one on your list I'd define as private is your back yard (assuming you've put a fence up). Everywhere else, you could be seen by any Joe walking by.
To throw a counter-argument to you, what happens if/when they figure out how to read memories? (i.e. convert human memory to data). Now *everyone* can potentially record everything...
Only so far as the guy has an actual recording of what he "sees", versus just his memories.
I'd love to have that ability, myself (not enough to gouge out an eye, mind) - the ability to rewind my day and remember where I put the car keys? Priceless.
(For a fictional view on this, try the Hominids/Humans/Hybrids series by Robert Sawyer. Short version for purposes of converstion: everyone has their own personal recording of their life, which leads to near-zero crime, since every witness has a video record of the incident, and any accused can prove their innocence by showing they were somewhere else.)
I was having that exact same thought: what will the cops do when this sort of thing becomes "standard issue"?
Yes, for right now it's more a toy than anything (although as a filmmaker, I could see some use for this in documentaries.)
But once they figure out how to pass that video back to the user (making it a true replacement eye), the cops are in a sticky situation - yes, it's streaming live. But are they willing to blind a man to prevent it?
I would suspect he wouldn't have too much trouble finding sponsors for the show. Leo LaPorte seems to be doing quite well for himself, for example.
Added bonus is that Dr. D has likely made his retirement money, and would be doing it for kicks and beer.
Which brings up an interesting question - does your uncle have an objection to people filming him on the job?
I don't think every cop is corrupt. But I think that when you consider that every cop has the means and authority to dispense violence, it makes sense that there's an impartial (or at least as impartial as possible) recording of what they do. As much for their protection as anyone elses.
Side thought for you Americans - don't you elect police chiefs? Why not ask them their position on unaccountable cops, and why they support hiding their activities from the public at large.
That part isn't part of the story. Just as how we didn't see the full day-by-day story of everything prior to the start of the plot. We see snippets, but not (for instance) why Jack decides to become a doctor, his residency, his first date...
The story has to end somewhere.
In simplest terms, it now makes you an identifiable suspect at any location you've visited.
Let me get this straight, you're using the frequency of an evolutionary based behavior (pack dominance) that requires no intelligence as an indicator for the frequency of something that requires a fair amount of intelligence and does nothing for the aggressor? I just want to make sure I understand the frame.
The frame is, bullies beat up geeks. History has shown that even when the geeks fight back, they get punished for fighting (since they don't have the skills to deal violence without getting caught).
So, if you're a geek, and you're looking for some payback, why would you expect them not to use the abilities and tools at their disposal?
Ex: guy shows up for the school track meet, and for some reason they're signed up for all women's events...
At every school I went to students just signed out books. School libraries themselves are usually quite useless, and an expensive high-tech upgrade like this one is just a vanity project.
Generally because for some perverse reason it's easier for a library to get funding for high-tech security systems and multimedia gadgetry than it is to get funding for actual books.
At the iPad level, there are bigger and more useful apps which could be more of a lock-in factor, but there isn't much lock-in at the iPod and iPhone level. Hell, there will probably be a dozen comments in this story about slashdotters who switched from an iPhone to android.
On a simpler note, could you not accuse *any* OS of this sort of "lock-in"? It's not like you can switch from XBox to PS3 and bring all your games across.
You've got it backwards - you buy other parts because they work well with the first one.
As in, if you have an iPod, and it does what you want, you're more likely to use other software/hardware that works well with the iPod (read: Macs).
If you prefer a Zune, you're probably going to want Windows Media Player. And so on...
People move their music libraries all the time. Buy a newer hard drive, move the library to it.
Well, I see two solutions here:
One: if both drives are active at the same moment (you're adding a drive without removing the old one), just change the iTunes library folder to the new location and hit "consolidate" - iTunes will copy everything over for you.
Two: if you're replacing the drive, wouldn't it be likely the directory structure will stay the same?
As for the removable drives, I'd be curious to know how any other media player keeps up with a randomly changing fileset.
You're probably right, but it doesn't change the basic problem - you're just changing "fight Tetris in court" to "fight Google in court".
It's easy to be completely right and still unable to win.