I think you are underestimating the amount of pointless complexity that's out there. Let me give you an example. I have the following kit at home: - a 5 year old Loewe Xelos, which comes as a screen and separate signal box - a bluray player - a Freesat HD box To get these gadgets to work well together, requires an *insane* amount of cabling and other peripherals: - the telly and signal box both have powercables, and there are two further cables that carry sound, video and control signals between the signal box and the telly - bluray requires an HDMI to DVI cable for video and two analogue cables for sound, plus power cable - Freesat requires an HDMI to DVI cable for video and a digital optical cable, optical-digital coax converter box and digital coax cable for sound, with a power cable for the freesat box and the converter - there's a DVI switch box, which requires a power cable - I tried to have digital sound out of the bluray as well, which required a digital audio switch box with its own powercable, but that didn't work and analogue sound wasn't too bad - finally, the freesat box requires an ethernet connection to a homeplug so that we can watch iplayer
This is a ridiculous and fragile infrastructure. It still doesn't work that well. It is this that Apple will presumably be looking to sort out. Of course, my specific issues are an outcome of the specific equipment I have, and current equipment will eliminate some issues entirely...but only at the cost of introducing others.
I'd hope your experience would have shown you that: a) there is a downside to every action and also to every lack of action, and that therefore b) downside must be weighed against upside and now allowed to dominate thinking if you want to conduct the right analysis That's the experience Voltaire was drawing on to make his famous quotation.
Erm. You told me it can be found in balance sheets. Presumably you think it's spottable there by laypeople, or else you would have not suggested a self evidently fuckwitted idea. Now, do you have any actual evidence that the situation you assert exists really is the case? Not hand waving, not telling me it really can be spotted, but actual evidence of the sort that wouldn't immediately be laughed out of court, or a newsroom? Let's bear in mind that you have made an assertion that the fraud exists, not me. So you'll only be taken seriously by people who don't yet agree with you, like me, if you have some actual evidence. I suspect that you don't really care much about doing anything other than airing your prejudices though.
Ok, I'm calling horseshit on this. A vague assertion that it's possible to see fraud if you look in balance sheets hardly cuts it as evidence. Especially as if you look in the annual reports of eg the uk fairtrade foundation, you can see the exact value of the premium to producers.
Not sure when godwin got expanded to cover all right wing politics. Nor how many apolitical critics of fair trade actually exist. I've never seen any, that's for sure
Would you like to post some actual evidence of your outlandish claims? I could well imagine that what you described has happened -- there is fraud and malpractice in every human endeavour. But the notion that *no* fair trade coffee premiums are actually spent on what they're supposed to be spent on -- paying famers extra -- sounds like a right-wing echo chamber wankfest rather than having the ring of truth to it.
Gosh, it's a good job you pointed out the risk of employees not being able to speak freely. I'll bet that's the very first time in human history that anyone has ever come up with that remarkable insight. Now all those auditing organisations will shut down, because it's also obvious that nothing whatsoever can be done to mitigate this risk and that when it is realised, it completely invalidates every other source of information that the audit relies on. Or just possibly, in the real world, audit organisations might already be taking steps to support employees to speak out freely, such as conducting interviews in private (even going so far as to sweep rooms for bugs) and using unattributed quotes. And triangulating information across multiple sources.
Why have people forgotten Voltaire? Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.
Well, the OP's money was on there being a reason why Apple picked up bad press when MS and Sony escaped it. Just a different (and more plausible) reason than yours: problems at Apple production sites sell more news than problems at other sites.
I'd be interested to know your credentials in having reached your conclusion that supply chain audits won't be helpful. Are you an expert in corporate responsibility? Do you audit companies for a living? Or do you just mistake kneejerk cynicism for independent thought?
That is a properly useful post you've linked to! As he says, he provides a method that should be good enough -- it won't prevent all conceivable attacks, but it will certainly make it very tough for a typical attacker to succeed.
Interesting. Auto gawande, in "the checklist" tells this the exact opposite way: that aircrew rely on manuals and not memory precisely when there are emergencies, because it reduces harm
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. They never release a major new feature, which they are marketing as being a step-change improvement in usability compared to any existing competitor solutions, without being sure that it can broadly deliver on its promises. Two examples: Safari on iPhone really was the first decent implementation of a browser on a phone; no mainstream phone had a decent touchscreen with multitouch before the iPhone. Of course, both features have been dramatically improved since then.
This cult-like following meme is getting a bit out of hand. Of course there are many many people who could be considered part of a hardcore Apple fanbase. Lots of them right here on Slashdot. They probably number in the hundreds of thousands or even millions. But Apple products have been bought by tens of millions of people, or possibly even hundreds of millions. They are not part of any cult of Apple. They probably aren't that passionate about the products. They just quite like their iPhone / iPod / iPad.
I assume *you* have never seen a new iPhone user swiping their phone across the desk either. I've never seen this, heard of this, found it on google, found it on youtube. I think you made it up. Especially as the actual text says "slide to unlock", which is pretty damned hard to interpret as "move the entire phone across a desk".
Your argument conflates at least three distinct assertions: 1 you don't like lack of choice. You address this to a dead man. Weird. 2 Apple's products don't require you to think to use them. You seem to hint that you think this is a bad thing, but you don't explain why. I'm not sure why you'd think it was a good use of your mind and time to have to think about *how* to use a product, rather than thinking about *what you are using the product for*. 3 Apple's products are not intuitive.
1 Bully for you. Some people like lots of choice, and others don't. No doubt you have a different view from others as to what is a meaningful choice and what is not -- I suspect processing power figures higher up your list than device colour. 2 and 3 are just the teensiest bit contradictory, and you're not really very clear about what you mean by intuitive. For me, intuitive means "easily learned with a minimum of external support" -- and swiping to unlock and pinching to zoom, which you for some unstated reason class as idiotic interface choices, seem to fit that pretty well. My three year old can do both, and only needed to see them done once to learn the trick. That makes them more intuitive than putting on her knickers.
I can't quite get over this priceless comment: "An article is a generous term considering it is really just a news blurb by an anonymous author."
It makes me wonder...are you unable to read? Is your comprehension worse than that of my five-year old? How can you have failed to notice: - the large photo of Mr Justice Leveson - the words underneath saying: "This is the official site of the Leveson Inquiry. It aims to provide the latest information on the Inquiry, including details of hearings and evidence, to the public and interested parties."
The link is not to an article, numpty-boy. The link is to the official website of the Leveson Inquiry. You know, the thing you are commenting on in such a spectacularly stupid fashion?
I think it would be reasonable to assume that if Mr Justice Leveson calls it an inquiry, that's how it should be referred to.
I hope you're feeling mortified now, but frankly I really doubt it. It would require too much brainpower.
Slashdot Mirror
V interesting, thx. Not sure how you find the time! My preferred uk source is the guardian. I find it more thorough than the rest
Would be v interested to know the names of the papers you read...will you share?
Eh? What percentage of home TV setups involve 3rd party audio? I'd be astonished if it's above 10%.
I think you are underestimating the amount of pointless complexity that's out there. Let me give you an example. I have the following kit at home:
- a 5 year old Loewe Xelos, which comes as a screen and separate signal box
- a bluray player
- a Freesat HD box
To get these gadgets to work well together, requires an *insane* amount of cabling and other peripherals:
- the telly and signal box both have powercables, and there are two further cables that carry sound, video and control signals between the signal box and the telly
- bluray requires an HDMI to DVI cable for video and two analogue cables for sound, plus power cable
- Freesat requires an HDMI to DVI cable for video and a digital optical cable, optical-digital coax converter box and digital coax cable for sound, with a power cable for the freesat box and the converter
- there's a DVI switch box, which requires a power cable
- I tried to have digital sound out of the bluray as well, which required a digital audio switch box with its own powercable, but that didn't work and analogue sound wasn't too bad
- finally, the freesat box requires an ethernet connection to a homeplug so that we can watch iplayer
This is a ridiculous and fragile infrastructure. It still doesn't work that well. It is this that Apple will presumably be looking to sort out. Of course, my specific issues are an outcome of the specific equipment I have, and current equipment will eliminate some issues entirely...but only at the cost of introducing others.
I'd hope your experience would have shown you that:
a) there is a downside to every action and also to every lack of action, and that therefore
b) downside must be weighed against upside and now allowed to dominate thinking if you want to conduct the right analysis
That's the experience Voltaire was drawing on to make his famous quotation.
Seriously? You think that's evidence? An assertion that you know some of the people involved?
Erm. You told me it can be found in balance sheets. Presumably you think it's spottable there by laypeople, or else you would have not suggested a self evidently fuckwitted idea. Now, do you have any actual evidence that the situation you assert exists really is the case? Not hand waving, not telling me it really can be spotted, but actual evidence of the sort that wouldn't immediately be laughed out of court, or a newsroom? Let's bear in mind that you have made an assertion that the fraud exists, not me. So you'll only be taken seriously by people who don't yet agree with you, like me, if you have some actual evidence. I suspect that you don't really care much about doing anything other than airing your prejudices though.
Ok, I'm calling horseshit on this. A vague assertion that it's possible to see fraud if you look in balance sheets hardly cuts it as evidence. Especially as if you look in the annual reports of eg the uk fairtrade foundation, you can see the exact value of the premium to producers.
Not sure when godwin got expanded to cover all right wing politics. Nor how many apolitical critics of fair trade actually exist. I've never seen any, that's for sure
I asked for evidence. You kinda made my point about the echo chamber
Legibility? To have an e-copy also? Didn't particularly sound more onerous than the normal security requirements of an institution to me. Ymmv
I did read your message. You talked about the pilot using memory in emergency. If that's not what you intended, you're not very good at writing.
Would you like to post some actual evidence of your outlandish claims? I could well imagine that what you described has happened -- there is fraud and malpractice in every human endeavour. But the notion that *no* fair trade coffee premiums are actually spent on what they're supposed to be spent on -- paying famers extra -- sounds like a right-wing echo chamber wankfest rather than having the ring of truth to it.
Gosh, it's a good job you pointed out the risk of employees not being able to speak freely. I'll bet that's the very first time in human history that anyone has ever come up with that remarkable insight. Now all those auditing organisations will shut down, because it's also obvious that nothing whatsoever can be done to mitigate this risk and that when it is realised, it completely invalidates every other source of information that the audit relies on. Or just possibly, in the real world, audit organisations might already be taking steps to support employees to speak out freely, such as conducting interviews in private (even going so far as to sweep rooms for bugs) and using unattributed quotes. And triangulating information across multiple sources.
Why have people forgotten Voltaire? Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.
Well, the OP's money was on there being a reason why Apple picked up bad press when MS and Sony escaped it. Just a different (and more plausible) reason than yours: problems at Apple production sites sell more news than problems at other sites.
I'd be interested to know your credentials in having reached your conclusion that supply chain audits won't be helpful. Are you an expert in corporate responsibility? Do you audit companies for a living? Or do you just mistake kneejerk cynicism for independent thought?
That is a properly useful post you've linked to! As he says, he provides a method that should be good enough -- it won't prevent all conceivable attacks, but it will certainly make it very tough for a typical attacker to succeed.
Interesting. Auto gawande, in "the checklist" tells this the exact opposite way: that aircrew rely on manuals and not memory precisely when there are emergencies, because it reduces harm
That is a truly extraordinary story. Thanks for telling us about it
Here's a link for others who are interested in a really amazing piece of heroism
http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/A20460782
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. They never release a major new feature, which they are marketing as being a step-change improvement in usability compared to any existing competitor solutions, without being sure that it can broadly deliver on its promises. Two examples: Safari on iPhone really was the first decent implementation of a browser on a phone; no mainstream phone had a decent touchscreen with multitouch before the iPhone. Of course, both features have been dramatically improved since then.
What I'd find fantastically helpful is if it can remind me of the umbrella when I get out of the taxi. That would be ubercool
This cult-like following meme is getting a bit out of hand. Of course there are many many people who could be considered part of a hardcore Apple fanbase. Lots of them right here on Slashdot. They probably number in the hundreds of thousands or even millions. But Apple products have been bought by tens of millions of people, or possibly even hundreds of millions. They are not part of any cult of Apple. They probably aren't that passionate about the products. They just quite like their iPhone / iPod / iPad.
I assume *you* have never seen a new iPhone user swiping their phone across the desk either. I've never seen this, heard of this, found it on google, found it on youtube. I think you made it up. Especially as the actual text says "slide to unlock", which is pretty damned hard to interpret as "move the entire phone across a desk".
How this can be marked insightful, I do not know.
Your argument conflates at least three distinct assertions:
1 you don't like lack of choice. You address this to a dead man. Weird.
2 Apple's products don't require you to think to use them. You seem to hint that you think this is a bad thing, but you don't explain why. I'm not sure why you'd think it was a good use of your mind and time to have to think about *how* to use a product, rather than thinking about *what you are using the product for*.
3 Apple's products are not intuitive.
1 Bully for you. Some people like lots of choice, and others don't. No doubt you have a different view from others as to what is a meaningful choice and what is not -- I suspect processing power figures higher up your list than device colour.
2 and 3 are just the teensiest bit contradictory, and you're not really very clear about what you mean by intuitive. For me, intuitive means "easily learned with a minimum of external support" -- and swiping to unlock and pinching to zoom, which you for some unstated reason class as idiotic interface choices, seem to fit that pretty well. My three year old can do both, and only needed to see them done once to learn the trick. That makes them more intuitive than putting on her knickers.
RAH certainly thought there'd been a decline....
I can't quite get over this priceless comment: "An article is a generous term considering it is really just a news blurb by an anonymous author."
It makes me wonder...are you unable to read? Is your comprehension worse than that of my five-year old? How can you have failed to notice:
- the large photo of Mr Justice Leveson
- the words underneath saying: "This is the official site of the Leveson Inquiry. It aims to provide the latest information on the Inquiry, including details of hearings and evidence, to the public and interested parties."
Really really stupid of you. Phenomenally dumb.
What. The. Fuckety. Fuck?
The link is not to an article, numpty-boy. The link is to the official website of the Leveson Inquiry. You know, the thing you are commenting on in such a spectacularly stupid fashion?
I think it would be reasonable to assume that if Mr Justice Leveson calls it an inquiry, that's how it should be referred to.
I hope you're feeling mortified now, but frankly I really doubt it. It would require too much brainpower.