There's another reason the iPhone has a good popular perception (over here in the UK at least).
Walk into a phone shop and I guarantee they'll either have no phones or the iPhone available to use.
Huh?
The iPhone is the only phone I've seen with working demo models on the high street. All other phones have only plastic carcasses nailed to the wall. Even the G1. How am I supposed to make a judgement about that?
I always get around it by searching explicitly for open-source instead of freeware. This has never failed me yet, though I admit I'm not too demanding.
This is one of the most insightful comments I have seen in recent Slashdot history.
I'd just like to say it was probably the least insightful comment I've ever read outside YouTube.
It was factually inaccurate (only patents can count as an asset, not R&D itself), and it had a singular lack of imagination; what would happen if IP didn't exist? e.g. The most mind-blowing bit for me:
Investors like it because instead of R&D being a cost to a company, it now becomes a profit center
1) They say that like it's true. 2) They say that like it would be a bad thing.
Turning R&D into a source of future revenue is something that can only accelerate our technological development.
Seeing comments like that modded +5 is the kind of thing that makes me wonder why I bother reading Slashdot.
But if you force all IP into the public domain as soon as it is discovered, you get a situation akin to the tragedy of the commons.
It becomes far more economical for an individual or company to wait for someone else to have a smart idea and exploit the hell out of it than to spend time and effort developing their own ideas to have it exploited by someone else.
No-one would want unlimited restrictions, but a time limited monopoly is good to get technology moving in the first place.
A good example; you're standing on Oxford Street and feeling hungry. You open maps, get it to pull down your current location. Then type 'Italian' into the search. You look at one of them, e.g. Carluccio's*. From there you can get to their webpage, get directions to it and call them, all with one press of a button. After you eat there, you decide you like the place. Pull out your search results and add it to your contacts. Whenever you want to find it again you can pull it out of your address book.
It's pretty smooth.
*This is not an endorsement or otherwise, I've never been to that particular Italian.
This reminds me of a show I saw on the BBC a few years ago. They took a well-spoken black lawyer in a suit, a perfectly charming fellow, and then they taught him to talk like a Brixton gangster, dress like a Brixton gangster and hang around with Brixton gangsters. Wouldn't you know it, suddenly people were afraid of him?
In conclusion, [if X then evolution is wrong and therefore] The Bible is correct...This is the only way to falsify evolution, and it is amazing (and convenient) that Darwin never encouraged people to attempt to falsify his theory in this manner.
[Edited for brevity and clarity]
Firstly, Darwin was very happy for people to try and disprove his theory in any way possible. Unfortunately the genetic theory and chemical know-how necessary to conduct your experiment weren't available in Victorian England. Besides, evolution doesn't propose an increase in traits, but an increase in adaption to a specific environment or ecosystem niche. The virus which gives you the common cold is no 'more' or 'less' evolved than you or me.
Secondly, your argument is built on a flawed premise: 1) Two species don't share a common ancestor therefore 2) Evolution is false therefore 3) The Bible is correct
The first step is questionable, but let's fly with it. It's the step from 2->3 that's the problem. Knowledge that the theory of evolution is wrong only tells us that evolution is wrong. Nothing further can be concluded.
To re-phrase your argument into a car analogy 1)I have a photo showing that your car is not red therefore 2)My theory that your car is red is not true therefore 3)Your car is green.
As you can see, this final statement is a bit of a logical leap.
This story put the fear of god into me. The first thing I did since reading it is to back up the website I admin (for my dad) locally. I'd always assumed our host would have good backup, but that seems naÃve now.
Having said that, a large riot would tear her limb from limb if she ever tried that.
Well, the last time in the England it provoked a vicious civil war that spilled over into Ireland and Scotland and resulted in the beheading of the asshat in charge at the time. Hopefully we'll be marginally more civilised next time.
How does a disapproval of a heriditary dictatorship have anything to do with tourist sites?
Oh please, the monarchy is there as a constitutional placeholder and a rubber stamp, nothing more. If you think the 'Liz is presiding over a 'hereditary dictatorship' then you truly are ignorant, regardless of how abhorrent a concept the monarchy is.
(And as I've said before in this thread, I am a small r republican Brit).
These established in British constitutional law that the monarch rules only with the consent of Parliament, and that the line of succession is chosen by Parliament, which is elected by we, the people of Britain.
In terms of caring what they think, the royals have tended to stay out of politics in our country after we chopped off one of their heads for getting too much into it. The American Revolution occurred more or less because they hadn't the wit to extend that lesson elsewhere and the British electorate of the time was entirely made of arrogant aristocrats.
To compare the peers and the crown in 1776 and 2008 is ignorant.
No it's not. Boeing spent years developing know-how and the expertise to make these planes.
Boeing themselves could shift outside the US, but I'm not sure what would be in it for them. They need the kind of highly skilled workforce only available in the West (Japan, Australia and New Zealand honorably included). They sell a lot of planes in America itself too. And even if they could get the labour outside the US, it would remain expensive.
The American worker is still good value for money if you look at labour costs/dollar profit.[1]
This is what I really don't understand. The Big 3 (who are only the medium-sized two over here in Europe) have plenty of light, cheap, efficient designs which they own either under their own brand (Ford) or under a variety of owned brands (GM with Opal, Vauxhall etc.). Why do they not produce them in the US?
The Big 3 compete fairly well in the face of stiff competition here, why do they remain so inflexible in North America?
You see, very little is actually produced in the US at this point
Don't be so ignorant. A quick wikipedia search would have disabused you of this foolish notion. The United States export more now than they have ever before (well, perhaps not this year...). Things exported include corn, steal, machinery and aircraft.
Total US exports in 2007 amounted to $1.145trillion. China's exports were worth $1.22trillion in the same year.[1] Services remain a fairly small part of that.[2]
People think that because we see massive container ships coming from overseas the West does nothing. But the West works on a value-added basis. A classic example is a Boeing 747. Sure the wheels may have been imported from Indonesia and the engines from Britain and the seat fabric from China. But the valuable bit is the bit where it's made into a plane, which takes place in Washington, US.
Sure the US has a balance of trade problem, but that's not because nothing is made there, it's because a lot more is used.
[1]CIA world factbook. [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USexportsgs1960-2004.gif
Another problem is, if the license is in several languages, and there is a discrepancy, one language must take primacy. See the case with the Irish constitution.
Re:Users are branching out - game companies are no
on
Is the Gaming PC Dead?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Now the companies that used to make Linux Games (Hello Unreal 3!) have decided not to do it anymore because they're kissing Microsofts ass.
Or the economics of investing a lot of money to supply a product to a niche market which is rendered even more niche by rampant piracy (the one damned thing which *is* OS-neutral on the PC) are just far too marginal for it to be worth the money.
Slashdot Mirror
There's another reason the iPhone has a good popular perception (over here in the UK at least).
Walk into a phone shop and I guarantee they'll either have no phones or the iPhone available to use.
Huh?
The iPhone is the only phone I've seen with working demo models on the high street. All other phones have only plastic carcasses nailed to the wall. Even the G1. How am I supposed to make a judgement about that?
This is in London and Reading, FYI.
Ah, we're coming up against the biggest lapse in the English language again. I meant software libre, I thought you meant software gratis. Mea culpa.
I always get around it by searching explicitly for open-source instead of freeware. This has never failed me yet, though I admit I'm not too demanding.
This is one of the most insightful comments I have seen in recent Slashdot history.
I'd just like to say it was probably the least insightful comment I've ever read outside YouTube.
It was factually inaccurate (only patents can count as an asset, not R&D itself), and it had a singular lack of imagination; what would happen if IP didn't exist? e.g. The most mind-blowing bit for me:
Investors like it because instead of R&D being a cost to a company, it now becomes a profit center
1) They say that like it's true.
2) They say that like it would be a bad thing.
Turning R&D into a source of future revenue is something that can only accelerate our technological development.
Seeing comments like that modded +5 is the kind of thing that makes me wonder why I bother reading Slashdot.
But if you force all IP into the public domain as soon as it is discovered, you get a situation akin to the tragedy of the commons.
It becomes far more economical for an individual or company to wait for someone else to have a smart idea and exploit the hell out of it than to spend time and effort developing their own ideas to have it exploited by someone else.
No-one would want unlimited restrictions, but a time limited monopoly is good to get technology moving in the first place.
It was. They ported to Aqua from X11, so it feels more like a native OSX application
I too have a system that works most of the time
I don't think anyone read that and thought you'd pirated Windows.
A good example; you're standing on Oxford Street and feeling hungry. You open maps, get it to pull down your current location. Then type 'Italian' into the search. You look at one of them, e.g. Carluccio's*. From there you can get to their webpage, get directions to it and call them, all with one press of a button. After you eat there, you decide you like the place. Pull out your search results and add it to your contacts. Whenever you want to find it again you can pull it out of your address book.
It's pretty smooth.
*This is not an endorsement or otherwise, I've never been to that particular Italian.
let me explain to you how democracy works.
That may be how democracy works. It's also why Western nations tend not to be pure democracies; one has to avoid the tyranny of the majority.
Yet which one are you eying suspiciously?
The fucking skinhead, of course! Jeez...
I'll admit, if you take him out of the equation it would probably be the muslim. But he's one hell of a terrifying image.
...adorned with nazi symbols and a shaved head...
Seriously man, where do you live?!
This reminds me of a show I saw on the BBC a few years ago. They took a well-spoken black lawyer in a suit, a perfectly charming fellow, and then they taught him to talk like a Brixton gangster, dress like a Brixton gangster and hang around with Brixton gangsters. Wouldn't you know it, suddenly people were afraid of him?
I know, I know, don't feed the trolls but...
In conclusion, [if X then evolution is wrong and therefore] The Bible is correct...This is the only way to falsify evolution, and it is amazing (and convenient) that Darwin never encouraged people to attempt to falsify his theory in this manner.
[Edited for brevity and clarity]
Firstly, Darwin was very happy for people to try and disprove his theory in any way possible. Unfortunately the genetic theory and chemical know-how necessary to conduct your experiment weren't available in Victorian England. Besides, evolution doesn't propose an increase in traits, but an increase in adaption to a specific environment or ecosystem niche. The virus which gives you the common cold is no 'more' or 'less' evolved than you or me.
Secondly, your argument is built on a flawed premise:
1) Two species don't share a common ancestor
therefore
2) Evolution is false
therefore
3) The Bible is correct
The first step is questionable, but let's fly with it. It's the step from 2->3 that's the problem. Knowledge that the theory of evolution is wrong only tells us that evolution is wrong. Nothing further can be concluded.
To re-phrase your argument into a car analogy
1)I have a photo showing that your car is not red
therefore
2)My theory that your car is red is not true
therefore
3)Your car is green.
As you can see, this final statement is a bit of a logical leap.
This story put the fear of god into me. The first thing I did since reading it is to back up the website I admin (for my dad) locally. I'd always assumed our host would have good backup, but that seems naÃve now.
Erm...good?
Having said that, a large riot would tear her limb from limb if she ever tried that.
Well, the last time in the England it provoked a vicious civil war that spilled over into Ireland and Scotland and resulted in the beheading of the asshat in charge at the time. Hopefully we'll be marginally more civilised next time.
Actually, Britain has a constitution, so I'm talking out of my ass.
There, fixed that for you.
How does a disapproval of a heriditary dictatorship have anything to do with tourist sites?
Oh please, the monarchy is there as a constitutional placeholder and a rubber stamp, nothing more. If you think the 'Liz is presiding over a 'hereditary dictatorship' then you truly are ignorant, regardless of how abhorrent a concept the monarchy is.
(And as I've said before in this thread, I am a small r republican Brit).
...not to mention flying in the face of the concepts of equality and consent of the governed.
The monarchy is actually here with the consent of the people in Britain. The key events are the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, the Glorious Revolution and the Act of Settlement.
These established in British constitutional law that the monarch rules only with the consent of Parliament, and that the line of succession is chosen by Parliament, which is elected by we, the people of Britain.
In terms of caring what they think, the royals have tended to stay out of politics in our country after we chopped off one of their heads for getting too much into it. The American Revolution occurred more or less because they hadn't the wit to extend that lesson elsewhere and the British electorate of the time was entirely made of arrogant aristocrats.
To compare the peers and the crown in 1776 and 2008 is ignorant.
Oh, and FYI, I'm republican (small r) too.
No it's not. Boeing spent years developing know-how and the expertise to make these planes.
Boeing themselves could shift outside the US, but I'm not sure what would be in it for them. They need the kind of highly skilled workforce only available in the West (Japan, Australia and New Zealand honorably included). They sell a lot of planes in America itself too. And even if they could get the labour outside the US, it would remain expensive.
The American worker is still good value for money if you look at labour costs/dollar profit.[1]
[1]Tim Harford-The Undercover Economist
Volvo cars are, in fact, Ford cars (here).
This is what I really don't understand. The Big 3 (who are only the medium-sized two over here in Europe) have plenty of light, cheap, efficient designs which they own either under their own brand (Ford) or under a variety of owned brands (GM with Opal, Vauxhall etc.). Why do they not produce them in the US?
The Big 3 compete fairly well in the face of stiff competition here, why do they remain so inflexible in North America?
You see, very little is actually produced in the US at this point
Don't be so ignorant. A quick wikipedia search would have disabused you of this foolish notion. The United States export more now than they have ever before (well, perhaps not this year...). Things exported include corn, steal, machinery and aircraft.
Total US exports in 2007 amounted to $1.145trillion. China's exports were worth $1.22trillion in the same year.[1] Services remain a fairly small part of that.[2]
People think that because we see massive container ships coming from overseas the West does nothing. But the West works on a value-added basis. A classic example is a Boeing 747. Sure the wheels may have been imported from Indonesia and the engines from Britain and the seat fabric from China. But the valuable bit is the bit where it's made into a plane, which takes place in Washington, US.
Sure the US has a balance of trade problem, but that's not because nothing is made there, it's because a lot more is used.
[1]CIA world factbook.
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USexportsgs1960-2004.gif
The United Kingdom has universal healthcare and we're not your model far left nation either. Ask the French.
Another advantage of Linux in this case is that one can use the simplified interface designed for netbooks.
Another problem is, if the license is in several languages, and there is a discrepancy, one language must take primacy. See the case with the Irish constitution.
Now the companies that used to make Linux Games (Hello Unreal 3!) have decided not to do it anymore because they're kissing Microsofts ass.
Or the economics of investing a lot of money to supply a product to a niche market which is rendered even more niche by rampant piracy (the one damned thing which *is* OS-neutral on the PC) are just far too marginal for it to be worth the money.
Cock-up before conspiracy.