For the most part you're right. There are a lot of historical reasons for this attitude. To quote the tenth amendment of the U.S. constitution, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This is why laws, cultures, and infrastructure vary so much from state to state. While the Commerce Clause ("[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;") has be used to limit the tenth amendment through Supreme Court decisions, local concerns have always trumped national ones.
Another reason for this is the members of the House of Representatives are elected from districts within the states. These representatives' first priority is to their district because those are their only constituents. That's why Nancy Pelosi doesn't care if she's hated throughout the midwest. She only has to worry about the vote in San Francisco (and similarly Midwestern representatives don't concern themselves with coastal politics).
The final reason for this local affinity is geography. A lot of Americans have never even left their home state. It's a big country. Texas is the size of France, Europe's largest country, and it's the second largest state. It's hard for someone in Hawaii to be concerned with what goes on in New York. These geographical differences have been the federal government's greatest challenge. That's what incited the country's only civil war. Urban and rural citizens have vastly different expectations of government. Their fight is to control the state first and the federal government second. Unfortunately, for many, the world community is only a concern if it's a military issue.
Some honesty. If either side was actually honest about their side of the issue, they could gain more traction. But when the pro side of the issue can't be honest about what they want, they shouldn't be surprised when people don't find their argument convincing.
I don't get your argument. This isn't a "medical marijuana" law, it just legalizes marijuana outright. The current system in California is dishonest. You go to some quack doctor and complain about headaches or nervousness or any bullshit symptom that "goes away when I smoke pot" and the quack hands out a prescription.
Prop 19 just legalizes marijuana and the arguments in favor of it are that it would unburden the justice system of the time and money spent arresting, convicting, and imprisoning marijuana sellers/users. It's the same reason alcohol prohibition was ended. Because keeping it illegal doesn't curtail usage as much as it increases crime.
I agree that, in the past, the supporters of "medical marijuana" were for the most part being dishonest. Most just wanted to smoke recreationally. However, marijuana is the best medicine to counteract chemo-therapy side-effects so they weren't actually being dishonest about its medicinal properties, they were just being dishonest about their reasons for supporting it.
What is "prop 19" - it is nowhere on my state's ballot. I suppose this is a micro version of all the non-USA people complaining Slashdot is too USA centric talks. You are too whatever-state-you're-in centric.
Not really. Prop 19 refers specifically to California's prop 19, which would legalize marijuana, but like the article points out, it's received quite a bit of national attention. I know plenty of people who don't know any of the propositions on my own state's ballot but they've heard of prop 19. If you haven't heard of prop 19 it probably has less to do with not being from California than it has to do with you not smoking pot.
btw, it annoys me to no end when some foreigner complains on Slashdot about how some comment is USA-centric. Sure, the internet is international, but when I go to a British website I don't complain about how it's UK-centric. I love that so many foreigners post on Slashdot; I've learned quite a bit from them, especially when the story is about their home country; but don't get annoyed when comments on a political story use the pronoun 'we' to refer to 'the American people.'
or is it an abrogation of parental responsibility?
I would say the school is at least partially responsible. We don't expect parents to educate their children on any other subjects, so why would they teach proper health? Lets face it, there are a lot of bad/ignorant parents in the world. Public schools exist so individuals have opportunities regardless of the morons they're raise by.
I can think of many economic and technical arguments for open and free, but not moral ones.
I'm going to refute myself real quick because this just occurred to me. In educational and government settings, open and free is a moral imperative because without these conditions, knowledge can be kept secret by those who have it and those who can afford it. A society cannot be free without knowledge, and I doubt anyone would argue that it's ethical to limit another's freedom. But with private entities, such as corporations and individuals, there is no imperative to share knowledge. A government that keeps secrets is tyrannical, an education system that only caters to those with money oppresses the poor.
So the point of the post stands, Apple is in no way morally obligated to be open and free. But the statement is refuted: in some cases there is a moral imperative for open and free.
Of course, from this perspective, MS's pursuit of making OOXML a government standard is even more unethical.
These days, Apple is doing things that even Microsoft never stooped to doing.
I've seen many comments similar to this one recently and I just don't understand it. Look at how MS funneled money into SCO to attack Linux, how they strong-armed Novell into a "licensing agreement," how they pressured governments into making OOXML a standard, or intentionally selling defective XB360s. Those are things that Apple never stooped to doing, and that's just recent history. Halloween document anyone?
Apple retaining tight control over the Mac platform isn't stooping to anything. It's what they've always done and will continue to do, much to their users' delight. Why should Apple change their business model to appease geeks who won't buy their products anyway? It doesn't matter what Apple does, people who hate Apple will never buy their products. Why should they change because of disdain from non-customers?
Microsoft has, throughout the years, continuously engaged in unethical business methods. I challenge you to cite one case of Apple doing anything unethical that Microsoft "never stooped to doing." There is no moral imperative that requires software to be open and free. I can think of many economic and technical arguments for open and free, but no moral ones. It's morally wrong to sell a product you know won't last more than six months with just average usage because you're ripping people off (don't give me that warranty crap -- it was extended because the math declared it necessary). It's morally wrong to extort people (Novell, SCO). It's morally wrong (at least in most cases) to lie (everything associated with OOXML was a pack of lies). To the best of my knowledge Apple doesn't exploit, extort, or engage in dishonest business practices. And even if an instance or two can be found, it hasn't been their business model since the company was founded. So how exactly are they stooping below MS?
Just look at the massive improvements to Firefox and IE since Chrome came out. Firefox was becoming bloated and slow while IE had been for years. Chrome has benefitted all internet users, whether they use it or a competing browser. I still use Safari because I'm a Mac whore, but Chrome is the only browser I've used that's noticeably faster. It's a fine example of why competition is necessary for products to improve. And not just competition between two or three entities, but from several.
Let me be the first to say, as a taxpayer, that I don't care. Why don't I care? Because the US government is already the most expensive, most powerful government AND world empire (with military bases in some 150 countries around the world) that has ever existed. The last thing the people at the top of the pyramid need is more cash passing through their corrupt hands.
In fact, I wish more companies would catch on to this. The way things are going today, the less money being raked through government every year, the better. But wait, you say. There are legitimate government services that don't have enough money. And why is that, I ask? Because the vast majority of cash passing through the hands of the elite are being directed to things that don't benefit you, rather than things that do.
You're right. Fuck the American people. This country needs to fall apart so China can become the #1 superpower and return balance to the world./sarcasm
I have plenty of problems with how the U.S. government is run, but I think that policy change would be preferable to bankrupting the country.
Unless you believe that all money ultimately belongs to the government, I fail to see how this is evil.
I look for every deduction I can grab as well. So does almost everyone else. This isn't wrong.
I disagree. Legal and moral aren't synonymous. As one of the country's largest technology companies, Google has a moral obligation to pay their fair share of taxes whether they're legally obligated to or not. They also have a moral obligation to lobby against these unfair tax codes. You cannot take a neutral stance on moral issues and avoid being evil. Doing good is the only way to avoid being evil because by taking a neutral stance is usually just as bad as being intentionally evil.
It goes back to the old murder issue: If someone is drowning and you have the ability to save them but don't, have you just murdered the person? My answer is: it doesn't matter because regardless, inaction was evil. Our government is drowning in debt and Google is intentionally contributing to the problem. Their attitude is, "I don't want to get wet, someone else can dive in."
They bought consumer trust with their "don't be evil" slogan, it's about time they started living up to it again.
I'm sure this will be an unpopular post, but Facebook is NOT violating privacy.
Really, if you post something on the internet and expect it to be private, you are an idiot. You can't reasonably expect privacy on someone else's servers. Once you release information in the wild, you have no control over what happens to it. None. Those privacy settings mean jack shit. They are only veils. In fact, those privacy settings aren't even guaranteed.
If you don't want people to know something about you, don't post it on the internet. It really is THAT simple. If you don't want the evidence to make it to your wife, your boss, or whatever, don't put that evidence in an archivable medium AT ALL. And lastly, if you don't like the way Facebook uses your information, DON'T USE THE GOD DAMN SITE. If you aren't using it, they can't "violate" your "privacy."
Bullshit. When you do online banking, you expect your information to remain private. When you click a box on Facebook that claims to protect your privacy, it dammed well better.
And that's what's so sad about this. When friends encouraged me to get on Facebook I told them about the profit model and why they shouldn't contribute to it, but they all had the same response, "who cares?" It was hard enough for them to understand why their personal information would even be profitable in the first place, but for them to actually care was impossible. Lets face it, Facebook users have the same view of privacy Zuckerberg has: they don't value it and they don't understand why anyone would (unless, of course, they had something to hide).
I value my privacy and I find Facebook to be the finest example of everything that is wrong with capitalism. But that's why I'm here on Slashdot and not there.
My car has a computer in it but I'm not concerned that it only runs specific preinstalled software. Just because a device has a microchip and computes in binary doesn't mean that it's a PC. A lot of people buy PCs to do very limited things and now they're discovering that they can do these same things on a phone, iPad, or a Playstation. They may not need a PC now that these products are available.
But in no way does that mean that NO ONE needs PCs. There is such a wide variety of uses for a PC that to lock one down 100% automatically limits the user base. Scientists aren't going to do work on an iPad. But they do do work on Mac Pros and XServes and there is no way that iOS will work for their needs.
It's basic economics. There's no indication that the demand for non-locked down computers is going away, so there's no reason to suspect as much. Do you really think that MS and Apple are going to hand over the entire market of open-PCs to Linux? So what if a market for locked-down computers is becoming big? This is a situation where Apple and MS have to either cater to both markets or be replaced in one or the other.
Also, who provides better engineered hardware than Apple?
Who provides a better all-around OS than Apple? (I like Linux too, but lets not kid ourselves, it's not there yet. Then look at all of Apple's great software - iLife, Logic, Final Cut, Aperture, Shake, ect. ect. ect.)
Furthermore, to this day MS continues its embrace, extend, extinguish policy. What has Apple done that is worse than MS's OOXML shenanigans, 100% defective rate on early XB360s, or using SCO to attack Linux? Apple has never stooped so low with Jobs at the helm.
Correction: they're not doing it now. Wait a few years. Just like Microsoft with its Xbox - ultimately, it will have Windows for business, and XBox for consumers. Apple will work on a similar distribution.
I don't get the XBox comparison. The XBox was never open. There was a time when MS didn't do much to stop people from modding them, but those individuals were still breaching their end-user agreements and voiding their warranties.
Furthermore, the XBox is just a media device. Of course it has no business applications, but little Suzy still can't do her homework on one so it's not much of a PC either. I don't own one, but last time I checked it doesn't even have a web browser. The only computers the XBox competes with are useless Alienware junk and other 'gamer' computers, and then it's still lacking in functionality (which makes sense, there's a huge price difference).
You're comparing apples and oranges. Microsoft doesn't want you to replace your PC with an XBox, they want you to own a PC _and_ an XBox. Similarly, Apple doesn't want you to have just one of their devices: they want you to own an Apple TV for media, a MacBook for mobile computing, an iPad for reading and casual browsing, and an iMac as the central computing hub. Oh, and an iPhone for a phone.
I don't see MS or Apple locking down Windows/OS X in a similar manner to iOS. Consumers don't want that so it's really not an option for them.
They just released the hybrid device (MacBook Air) that will eventually replace all consumer devices with built-in DRM. Steve will have no incentive to allow you to buy any software outside of the App Store, since he gets a 30% cut.
No, seriously guys. You already consented. He's going to stick it all the way in.
I think people like you _want_ Apple to become some evil company because you dislike something else about the company or its users.
No, seriously guy. No one consented to anything. It's a product announcement and evil DRM wasn't part of it.
Why? Because the Internet was created by "the government", is regulated by "the government", and subsidized by "the government".
in a dictatorship country, that's the reason given by the ruler to control all media.
But that's a false equivalence because this isn't a dictatorship. The U.S. is a constitutional republic with checks and balances in place.
Furthermore, these are also the same reasons that the British government controls the BBC (created, regulated, and subsidized by the government). But in no way is the BBC nefarious, overtly biased, or used for propaganda. Personally, I find it favorable to most American media outlets in regards to quality and fairness. Government isn't intrinsically bad because dictatorships exist.
btw, thank Al Gore and his legislation for giving you the opportunity to voice your opinion on this forum.
It's called drama and yes, it does go back centuries. Characters with unorthodox motivations aren't very compelling and are difficult to make the audience care about. That's why you see a pallet of similar motivations in most films: greed, lust, love, vengeance, survival, and justice. Characters who lack these motivations usually aren't motivated by anything, they're just driven forward by circumstance.
I disagree. If he wanted to make money, the site would have been crawling with ads, and would have imploded. In the absense of other believable data, I believe he wanted to build it because he liked to build things, and that he wanted to make something successful.
Off topic, what is with all the Zuckerberg hate on Slashdot? He is a techie made good. He is living most coder's dreams. Is it that he invented it, and you didn't?
Here's a question: How did he make billions without the site crawling with ads?
Answer: Selling your personal information without your consent.
I get that you're trying to be funny, but Jobs is almost the exact opposite as Zuckerberg. Like the parent said, Facebook is an invented "waste of time." Jobs has always prioritized Macs as tools rather than toys. Even the iPod/iPhone/iPad aren't designed to be a waste of time: the iPod compliments what you would already be doing (exercising, driving, ect.), the iPhone has plenty of useless apps (like Facebook) but is primarily designed to be a more productive phone. The iPad is the closest thing to a pointless time-sink, but I don't consider reading to be a waste of time and to me the iPad is an e-reader first.
Hell, Zuckerberg is worse than Gates. Gates may have also been an evil bastard but at least Office is useful. At least Gates became successful by being a sly bastard and fooling people into "partnering" with him rather than just outright stealing a project he was hired to work on. The only thing more pathetic than people actually using Facebook despite being well aware the jackass who runs it is these kids who actually look up to him. We're looking at a generation of kids who glorify the greatest shortcomings of capitalism and who will exploit those shortcomings given the opportunity.
The overpopulation myth. Bottom line - we could provide for every single person living on this planet with just the resources inside the US. Never mind the rest of the world. We're a LONG way from overpopulation... We have a distribution - not resource - problem to solve.
If people were boxes that needed to be stored in a warehouse, then the math would be solid. But that's simply not the case. Furthermore, even if such a state is possible and sustainable, that in no way means that it's desirable. I don't want to live in Texas with the population density throughout the entire state as dense as NYC. That sounds horrific.
Another thing that is completely neglected is future population growth. The reason people like you think that overpopulation is a myth is because you're only thinking within the timeframe of your own life. It's that old, "won't be a problem until after I'm dead" shrug off of a problem. Some people actually care about future generations, even if they won't be around to enjoy their company.
And finally, the environmental impact isn't taken into account at all. Waste management, air pollution, water pollution, and the preservation of natural ecosystems are all neglected.
Quality of life is important. It's not like growing corn where the more you can grow in a single field the better. Ears of corn don't have feelings and desires and integrity and morality. My favorite quote from that paper is in the very beginning:
I am an engineer, so I actually understand numbers, rather than merely pushing them around.
His definition of 'understand' and mine must be different.
Slashdot Mirror
For the most part you're right. There are a lot of historical reasons for this attitude. To quote the tenth amendment of the U.S. constitution, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This is why laws, cultures, and infrastructure vary so much from state to state. While the Commerce Clause ("[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;") has be used to limit the tenth amendment through Supreme Court decisions, local concerns have always trumped national ones.
Another reason for this is the members of the House of Representatives are elected from districts within the states. These representatives' first priority is to their district because those are their only constituents. That's why Nancy Pelosi doesn't care if she's hated throughout the midwest. She only has to worry about the vote in San Francisco (and similarly Midwestern representatives don't concern themselves with coastal politics).
The final reason for this local affinity is geography. A lot of Americans have never even left their home state. It's a big country. Texas is the size of France, Europe's largest country, and it's the second largest state. It's hard for someone in Hawaii to be concerned with what goes on in New York. These geographical differences have been the federal government's greatest challenge. That's what incited the country's only civil war. Urban and rural citizens have vastly different expectations of government. Their fight is to control the state first and the federal government second. Unfortunately, for many, the world community is only a concern if it's a military issue.
Some honesty. If either side was actually honest about their side of the issue, they could gain more traction. But when the pro side of the issue can't be honest about what they want, they shouldn't be surprised when people don't find their argument convincing.
I don't get your argument. This isn't a "medical marijuana" law, it just legalizes marijuana outright. The current system in California is dishonest. You go to some quack doctor and complain about headaches or nervousness or any bullshit symptom that "goes away when I smoke pot" and the quack hands out a prescription.
Prop 19 just legalizes marijuana and the arguments in favor of it are that it would unburden the justice system of the time and money spent arresting, convicting, and imprisoning marijuana sellers/users. It's the same reason alcohol prohibition was ended. Because keeping it illegal doesn't curtail usage as much as it increases crime.
I agree that, in the past, the supporters of "medical marijuana" were for the most part being dishonest. Most just wanted to smoke recreationally. However, marijuana is the best medicine to counteract chemo-therapy side-effects so they weren't actually being dishonest about its medicinal properties, they were just being dishonest about their reasons for supporting it.
What is "prop 19" - it is nowhere on my state's ballot. I suppose this is a micro version of all the non-USA people complaining Slashdot is too USA centric talks. You are too whatever-state-you're-in centric.
Not really. Prop 19 refers specifically to California's prop 19, which would legalize marijuana, but like the article points out, it's received quite a bit of national attention. I know plenty of people who don't know any of the propositions on my own state's ballot but they've heard of prop 19. If you haven't heard of prop 19 it probably has less to do with not being from California than it has to do with you not smoking pot.
btw, it annoys me to no end when some foreigner complains on Slashdot about how some comment is USA-centric. Sure, the internet is international, but when I go to a British website I don't complain about how it's UK-centric. I love that so many foreigners post on Slashdot; I've learned quite a bit from them, especially when the story is about their home country; but don't get annoyed when comments on a political story use the pronoun 'we' to refer to 'the American people.'
or is it an abrogation of parental responsibility?
I would say the school is at least partially responsible. We don't expect parents to educate their children on any other subjects, so why would they teach proper health? Lets face it, there are a lot of bad/ignorant parents in the world. Public schools exist so individuals have opportunities regardless of the morons they're raise by.
I can think of many economic and technical arguments for open and free, but not moral ones.
I'm going to refute myself real quick because this just occurred to me. In educational and government settings, open and free is a moral imperative because without these conditions, knowledge can be kept secret by those who have it and those who can afford it. A society cannot be free without knowledge, and I doubt anyone would argue that it's ethical to limit another's freedom. But with private entities, such as corporations and individuals, there is no imperative to share knowledge. A government that keeps secrets is tyrannical, an education system that only caters to those with money oppresses the poor.
So the point of the post stands, Apple is in no way morally obligated to be open and free. But the statement is refuted: in some cases there is a moral imperative for open and free.
Of course, from this perspective, MS's pursuit of making OOXML a government standard is even more unethical.
These days, Apple is doing things that even Microsoft never stooped to doing.
I've seen many comments similar to this one recently and I just don't understand it. Look at how MS funneled money into SCO to attack Linux, how they strong-armed Novell into a "licensing agreement," how they pressured governments into making OOXML a standard, or intentionally selling defective XB360s. Those are things that Apple never stooped to doing, and that's just recent history. Halloween document anyone?
Apple retaining tight control over the Mac platform isn't stooping to anything. It's what they've always done and will continue to do, much to their users' delight. Why should Apple change their business model to appease geeks who won't buy their products anyway? It doesn't matter what Apple does, people who hate Apple will never buy their products. Why should they change because of disdain from non-customers?
Microsoft has, throughout the years, continuously engaged in unethical business methods. I challenge you to cite one case of Apple doing anything unethical that Microsoft "never stooped to doing." There is no moral imperative that requires software to be open and free. I can think of many economic and technical arguments for open and free, but no moral ones. It's morally wrong to sell a product you know won't last more than six months with just average usage because you're ripping people off (don't give me that warranty crap -- it was extended because the math declared it necessary). It's morally wrong to extort people (Novell, SCO). It's morally wrong (at least in most cases) to lie (everything associated with OOXML was a pack of lies). To the best of my knowledge Apple doesn't exploit, extort, or engage in dishonest business practices. And even if an instance or two can be found, it hasn't been their business model since the company was founded. So how exactly are they stooping below MS?
Just look at the massive improvements to Firefox and IE since Chrome came out. Firefox was becoming bloated and slow while IE had been for years. Chrome has benefitted all internet users, whether they use it or a competing browser. I still use Safari because I'm a Mac whore, but Chrome is the only browser I've used that's noticeably faster. It's a fine example of why competition is necessary for products to improve. And not just competition between two or three entities, but from several.
Let me be the first to say, as a taxpayer, that I don't care. Why don't I care? Because the US government is already the most expensive, most powerful government AND world empire (with military bases in some 150 countries around the world) that has ever existed. The last thing the people at the top of the pyramid need is more cash passing through their corrupt hands.
In fact, I wish more companies would catch on to this. The way things are going today, the less money being raked through government every year, the better. But wait, you say. There are legitimate government services that don't have enough money. And why is that, I ask? Because the vast majority of cash passing through the hands of the elite are being directed to things that don't benefit you, rather than things that do.
You're right. Fuck the American people. This country needs to fall apart so China can become the #1 superpower and return balance to the world. /sarcasm
I have plenty of problems with how the U.S. government is run, but I think that policy change would be preferable to bankrupting the country.
Unless you believe that all money ultimately belongs to the government, I fail to see how this is evil.
I look for every deduction I can grab as well. So does almost everyone else. This isn't wrong.
I disagree. Legal and moral aren't synonymous. As one of the country's largest technology companies, Google has a moral obligation to pay their fair share of taxes whether they're legally obligated to or not. They also have a moral obligation to lobby against these unfair tax codes. You cannot take a neutral stance on moral issues and avoid being evil. Doing good is the only way to avoid being evil because by taking a neutral stance is usually just as bad as being intentionally evil.
It goes back to the old murder issue: If someone is drowning and you have the ability to save them but don't, have you just murdered the person? My answer is: it doesn't matter because regardless, inaction was evil. Our government is drowning in debt and Google is intentionally contributing to the problem. Their attitude is, "I don't want to get wet, someone else can dive in."
They bought consumer trust with their "don't be evil" slogan, it's about time they started living up to it again.
Nothing and no one should have first amendment restrictions.
FIRE!!!!!!!!!
Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21, @11:51AM(#33974432) rapes babies and strangles puppies!
The military is conducting an operation at coordinates x-y at 11:00AM (EST) on October 22.
Corporations funneling money into political campaigns are merely expressing their political opinions!
Need any other examples?
I'm sure this will be an unpopular post, but Facebook is NOT violating privacy.
Really, if you post something on the internet and expect it to be private, you are an idiot. You can't reasonably expect privacy on someone else's servers. Once you release information in the wild, you have no control over what happens to it. None. Those privacy settings mean jack shit. They are only veils. In fact, those privacy settings aren't even guaranteed.
If you don't want people to know something about you, don't post it on the internet. It really is THAT simple. If you don't want the evidence to make it to your wife, your boss, or whatever, don't put that evidence in an archivable medium AT ALL. And lastly, if you don't like the way Facebook uses your information, DON'T USE THE GOD DAMN SITE. If you aren't using it, they can't "violate" your "privacy."
Bullshit. When you do online banking, you expect your information to remain private. When you click a box on Facebook that claims to protect your privacy, it dammed well better.
And that's what's so sad about this. When friends encouraged me to get on Facebook I told them about the profit model and why they shouldn't contribute to it, but they all had the same response, "who cares?" It was hard enough for them to understand why their personal information would even be profitable in the first place, but for them to actually care was impossible. Lets face it, Facebook users have the same view of privacy Zuckerberg has: they don't value it and they don't understand why anyone would (unless, of course, they had something to hide).
I value my privacy and I find Facebook to be the finest example of everything that is wrong with capitalism. But that's why I'm here on Slashdot and not there.
My car has a computer in it but I'm not concerned that it only runs specific preinstalled software. Just because a device has a microchip and computes in binary doesn't mean that it's a PC. A lot of people buy PCs to do very limited things and now they're discovering that they can do these same things on a phone, iPad, or a Playstation. They may not need a PC now that these products are available.
But in no way does that mean that NO ONE needs PCs. There is such a wide variety of uses for a PC that to lock one down 100% automatically limits the user base. Scientists aren't going to do work on an iPad. But they do do work on Mac Pros and XServes and there is no way that iOS will work for their needs.
It's basic economics. There's no indication that the demand for non-locked down computers is going away, so there's no reason to suspect as much. Do you really think that MS and Apple are going to hand over the entire market of open-PCs to Linux? So what if a market for locked-down computers is becoming big? This is a situation where Apple and MS have to either cater to both markets or be replaced in one or the other.
How so?
Also, who provides better engineered hardware than Apple?
Who provides a better all-around OS than Apple? (I like Linux too, but lets not kid ourselves, it's not there yet. Then look at all of Apple's great software - iLife, Logic, Final Cut, Aperture, Shake, ect. ect. ect.)
Furthermore, to this day MS continues its embrace, extend, extinguish policy. What has Apple done that is worse than MS's OOXML shenanigans, 100% defective rate on early XB360s, or using SCO to attack Linux? Apple has never stooped so low with Jobs at the helm.
No, seriously guy. No one consented to anything. It's a product announcement and evil DRM wasn't part of it.
Lion doesn't have DRM, huh? Well, that's one way to ignore reality. Good luck with that.
I'm ignoring the citation you didn't provide.
There is no reason to believe they won't try and push that up the stack if they feel users will accept it.
There isn't?
Take that slippery slope bullshit somewhere else. This is Slashdot and Logic 101 is a required class for most tech degrees.
Correction: they're not doing it now. Wait a few years. Just like Microsoft with its Xbox - ultimately, it will have Windows for business, and XBox for consumers. Apple will work on a similar distribution.
I don't get the XBox comparison. The XBox was never open. There was a time when MS didn't do much to stop people from modding them, but those individuals were still breaching their end-user agreements and voiding their warranties.
Furthermore, the XBox is just a media device. Of course it has no business applications, but little Suzy still can't do her homework on one so it's not much of a PC either. I don't own one, but last time I checked it doesn't even have a web browser. The only computers the XBox competes with are useless Alienware junk and other 'gamer' computers, and then it's still lacking in functionality (which makes sense, there's a huge price difference).
You're comparing apples and oranges. Microsoft doesn't want you to replace your PC with an XBox, they want you to own a PC _and_ an XBox. Similarly, Apple doesn't want you to have just one of their devices: they want you to own an Apple TV for media, a MacBook for mobile computing, an iPad for reading and casual browsing, and an iMac as the central computing hub. Oh, and an iPhone for a phone.
I don't see MS or Apple locking down Windows/OS X in a similar manner to iOS. Consumers don't want that so it's really not an option for them.
They just released the hybrid device (MacBook Air) that will eventually replace all consumer devices with built-in DRM. Steve will have no incentive to allow you to buy any software outside of the App Store, since he gets a 30% cut.
No, seriously guys. You already consented. He's going to stick it all the way in.
I think people like you _want_ Apple to become some evil company because you dislike something else about the company or its users.
No, seriously guy. No one consented to anything. It's a product announcement and evil DRM wasn't part of it.
www.apple.com
in a dictatorship country, that's the reason given by the ruler to control all media.
But that's a false equivalence because this isn't a dictatorship. The U.S. is a constitutional republic with checks and balances in place.
Furthermore, these are also the same reasons that the British government controls the BBC (created, regulated, and subsidized by the government). But in no way is the BBC nefarious, overtly biased, or used for propaganda. Personally, I find it favorable to most American media outlets in regards to quality and fairness. Government isn't intrinsically bad because dictatorships exist.
btw, thank Al Gore and his legislation for giving you the opportunity to voice your opinion on this forum.
Exactly. Napster NEVER had a financial model.
It's called drama and yes, it does go back centuries. Characters with unorthodox motivations aren't very compelling and are difficult to make the audience care about. That's why you see a pallet of similar motivations in most films: greed, lust, love, vengeance, survival, and justice. Characters who lack these motivations usually aren't motivated by anything, they're just driven forward by circumstance.
I disagree. If he wanted to make money, the site would have been crawling with ads, and would have imploded. In the absense of other believable data, I believe he wanted to build it because he liked to build things, and that he wanted to make something successful.
Off topic, what is with all the Zuckerberg hate on Slashdot? He is a techie made good. He is living most coder's dreams. Is it that he invented it, and you didn't?
Here's a question: How did he make billions without the site crawling with ads?
Answer: Selling your personal information without your consent.
I get that you're trying to be funny, but Jobs is almost the exact opposite as Zuckerberg. Like the parent said, Facebook is an invented "waste of time." Jobs has always prioritized Macs as tools rather than toys. Even the iPod/iPhone/iPad aren't designed to be a waste of time: the iPod compliments what you would already be doing (exercising, driving, ect.), the iPhone has plenty of useless apps (like Facebook) but is primarily designed to be a more productive phone. The iPad is the closest thing to a pointless time-sink, but I don't consider reading to be a waste of time and to me the iPad is an e-reader first.
Hell, Zuckerberg is worse than Gates. Gates may have also been an evil bastard but at least Office is useful. At least Gates became successful by being a sly bastard and fooling people into "partnering" with him rather than just outright stealing a project he was hired to work on. The only thing more pathetic than people actually using Facebook despite being well aware the jackass who runs it is these kids who actually look up to him. We're looking at a generation of kids who glorify the greatest shortcomings of capitalism and who will exploit those shortcomings given the opportunity.
The overpopulation myth. Bottom line - we could provide for every single person living on this planet with just the resources inside the US. Never mind the rest of the world. We're a LONG way from overpopulation... We have a distribution - not resource - problem to solve.
If people were boxes that needed to be stored in a warehouse, then the math would be solid. But that's simply not the case. Furthermore, even if such a state is possible and sustainable, that in no way means that it's desirable. I don't want to live in Texas with the population density throughout the entire state as dense as NYC. That sounds horrific.
Another thing that is completely neglected is future population growth. The reason people like you think that overpopulation is a myth is because you're only thinking within the timeframe of your own life. It's that old, "won't be a problem until after I'm dead" shrug off of a problem. Some people actually care about future generations, even if they won't be around to enjoy their company.
And finally, the environmental impact isn't taken into account at all. Waste management, air pollution, water pollution, and the preservation of natural ecosystems are all neglected.
Quality of life is important. It's not like growing corn where the more you can grow in a single field the better. Ears of corn don't have feelings and desires and integrity and morality. My favorite quote from that paper is in the very beginning:
I am an engineer, so I actually understand numbers, rather than merely pushing them around.
His definition of 'understand' and mine must be different.