the way open source normally works, is that they will do their own thing for a while and if the rest of the community decide its a good idea, they'll adopt it later. eventually, things will merge again and everyone will follow a similar course.
That puts you right in the middle of Apple's demographic.
I'm a developer too (not web) and I can tell you I wasn't happy with xcode - it crashed several times the first time I used it. And I'll code in java anyday over objective c. I know C/C++, python, perl, BASIC and java (in no particular order) and looking at objective C was so unnatural I decided to stick with what I know and leave it for apple nuts. Trying to develop for iOS without xcode is impossible, and xcode just didn't agree with me.
I like choices. choices are good. Isn't it a wonderful world that we are all different. Except apple people - they are all the same. A minority, thankfully, but all exactly the same.
If you buy a phone for the updates, instead of what it can do *now*, then you're an idiot.
Its what the updates are for that is important, and I haven't seen much to be excited about in iOS updates. Most of the hot new stuff requires newer hardware anyway.
My wife didn't notice the difference in her phone going from 3.x to 4.x. It used to crash a bit before - and I suppose it does a bit less now...big deal.
Android updates are much the same, except the newer versions are adding major features to most phones. Still, the same argument applies - to joe average the new features may be useless.
Buy a phone for what it does already, not for some imaginary update you dont even know about yet.
I'm really happy for you that you care so much about the profits of the company you personally contributed to.
I'm sure the profits mean a lot to Apple, and Apple fans should be happy that their favourite company wont go out of business but other than that their profits mean absolutely zilch to consumers.
If it was the other way round, you people would be claiming that Apple is winning on numbers...I'm just amazed at how many of you still have your head in the sand.
Android is winning over iOS. No one cares if Apple makes more money than Google, except for Apple and Google.
But everyone has their preference, and no one is suggesting you should change yours.
If apple stuff works for you, just use it - dont worry about which one has more sales / profits / hype.
You should be thankful that the competition is forcing Apple to improve their products and discount prices.
I've never found the iOS user experience as good as the reviews claim. It certainly isn't consistent like people pretend. Sure, neither is Android, but that's not the point here.
I think its one of those things that everyone kept telling themselves (because a large minority accepted it) and now its considered fact.
Maybe iOS is easier for a non-techie user than android, but its not so clear cut.
just being easier to use than android doesn't make it the perfect OS. The problem I have with iOS is its "one size fits all" policy where you get the default and that's all. It didn't fit me - and I had no option but to find a different device that worked for me.
There are still more non-apple people than apple people (ie. more people do not own an iPad for example than those who do), so that would seem to suggest that the marketing and blog hype does not paint the same picture as reality. The iPad may dominate the market, but its not a big market.
Yes, apple stuff is good, but I know a lot of people who are still interested in specs. And you just cannot assume that a device as inflexible as apple's is suitable for everyone. It isn't. It isn't even suitable for the majority of people.
iPads are only for people who want Apple stuff. Most (not all) people will either only buy apple or they will only buy non-apple. Very few people really care about the comparisons between them, except to rub it in to the opposition.
Otherwise, you're right - its irrelevant - but I'm making the argument from a different perspective.
but the point is, we need A leader. and it seems that it doesn't matter who it is, people will find fault in them one way or another.
I'm just voicing my opinion that there is no perfect solution, and that this solution seems perfectly fine so long as you trust your leaders to protect you.
If this is not the case then you have a much bigger problem than this "big brother" system...
Its only creepy if you distrust the party using it.
So if you dont trust the current law enforcers, what is it you really want?
Do you want NO law enforcement? hardly a solution. Do you want the law enforcement not to have good tools? criminals will probably always have at least as powerful tools at their disposal...why would you want to cripple the law enforcers? So given that we need SOMEONE to do the job of police, and we need to be kept safe...just what DO you want?
To put it another way, if you distrust the people using this system, why? and how would they do their job effectively without it?
Sorry, how would you go about selecting another provider with a better price?
I'm in Australia, and have recently tried shopping around for better energy rates. The first problem is that all companies charge virtually the same rates so its near impossible to differentiate between them. I would think that 99% of companies will pass on the costs of any carbon tax to the consumer. When one company increases their prices, the others usually follow. Same with fuel/petrol.
But again, the risk of those companies colluding to increase prices is the same risk regardless of whether they are paying a carbon tax. So unless they are colluding now, then they are not likely to collude when the tax is introduced. Add if they are colluding then that is illegal, and it needs to be stopped.
yes, it needs to be stopped...good luck with that...
Sure, you can get your media on iTunes, but the quality is terrible and it takes long enough to download that it completely defeats the purpose. It takes 5 minutes to hire a DVD from the video store vs 1-3 hours to download on iTunes, and iTunes normally costs MORE.
If you plan your entire week on Sunday, and then start all your downloads on sunday night, then good luck to you - I do not want your boring scheduled life.
Same goes for bittorrent - in the time it takes to download any movie, I could've been to the movie store, hired the movie, watched it, and then returned it. Bittorrent is for people who are too tight to pay $4 for a movie rental, yet rich enough to afford the $50K lawsuit which no matter how much you deny it...is inevitable.
I should mention that I'm all for online content delivery, but even when it is available, its not yet good enough to replace physical media (including the delivery mechanism & time).
The tax itself will not force anyone to reduce their carbon emissions. The extra cost will just be passed on to the consumer and things will continue as before.
You need to think some more about how it works. The government charges the emitter per ton of carbon, but then compensates you using the money from the charge. You are, by default, in the same position as before. The energy company can raise their prices beyond the amount of compensation, but if they do that, you can simply select another provider with a better price. You can also compensate by investing in some household efficiencies - and thus reduce you consumption.
Under the scheme, there are incentives for both you to reduce consumption and the emitter to reduce emissions. It's possible for price gouging to occur, but then, that has always been possible.
Sorry, how would you go about selecting another provider with a better price?
I'm in Australia, and have recently tried shopping around for better energy rates. The first problem is that all companies charge virtually the same rates so its near impossible to differentiate between them. I would think that 99% of companies will pass on the costs of any carbon tax to the consumer. When one company increases their prices, the others usually follow. Same with fuel/petrol.
My point was actually similar to what you said - that the carbon tax will likely put us in the same situation we are already in, just that we pay more and get paid more. It will take greener energy and fuels to actually create any benefit...and hopefully the carbon tax will allow a situation where green energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. At the moment it costs about 5.5c/KWh more - for 100% green electricity vs traditional electricity.
As I see it, a carbon tax always comes back to the consumer at the end of the day. By consumer I mean, anyone who's paying for stuff that results in carbon emissions.
The only way it can actually work is if someone decides to sell carbon-friendly stuff that is therefore cheaper (because it is not taxed) and use competition to push the heavy polluters out of the market.
The tax itself will not force anyone to reduce their carbon emissions. The extra cost will just be passed on to the consumer and things will continue as before.
It will be competition from greener companies that will drive the change. If greener products/services are offered much cheaper, and gain significant market share - this will force the not-so-green companies to rethink their strategy in order to stay in business.
Hopefully we do end up with something like this - and if so, the carbon tax will not have been worthless.
I can't fathom why anyone's having kids. The kids we have already are truly screwed.
Um, your logic doesn't work. Not having kids is 100% guaranteed to make the human race die out, and in just 100 years or so. You need to think up a better solution, because that one, well, isn't one at all...
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't saying you need to trust the people who are currently there.
I was saying that we need SOMEONE to do law enforcement, and whoever it is needs to be trusted.
twist what I said all you like, but it seems people cannot separate reality from an open discussion around "well how would YOU do it better?"
I was merely trying to say that trust is a necessary part of safety. If you never trust anyone, you will never feel safe.
the way open source normally works, is that they will do their own thing for a while and if the rest of the community decide its a good idea, they'll adopt it later. eventually, things will merge again and everyone will follow a similar course.
Interesting to watch.
You kind of mentioned you were web developers.
That puts you right in the middle of Apple's demographic.
I'm a developer too (not web) and I can tell you I wasn't happy with xcode - it crashed several times the first time I used it.
And I'll code in java anyday over objective c. I know C/C++, python, perl, BASIC and java (in no particular order) and looking at objective C was so unnatural I decided to stick with what I know and leave it for apple nuts. Trying to develop for iOS without xcode is impossible, and xcode just didn't agree with me.
I like choices. choices are good. Isn't it a wonderful world that we are all different. Except apple people - they are all the same. A minority, thankfully, but all exactly the same.
If you buy a phone for the updates, instead of what it can do *now*, then you're an idiot.
Its what the updates are for that is important, and I haven't seen much to be excited about in iOS updates. Most of the hot new stuff requires newer hardware anyway.
My wife didn't notice the difference in her phone going from 3.x to 4.x. It used to crash a bit before - and I suppose it does a bit less now...big deal.
Android updates are much the same, except the newer versions are adding major features to most phones. Still, the same argument applies - to joe average the new features may be useless.
Buy a phone for what it does already, not for some imaginary update you dont even know about yet.
I'm really happy for you that you care so much about the profits of the company you personally contributed to.
I'm sure the profits mean a lot to Apple, and Apple fans should be happy that their favourite company wont go out of business but other than that their profits mean absolutely zilch to consumers.
If it was the other way round, you people would be claiming that Apple is winning on numbers...I'm just amazed at how many of you still have your head in the sand.
Android is winning over iOS. No one cares if Apple makes more money than Google, except for Apple and Google.
But everyone has their preference, and no one is suggesting you should change yours.
If apple stuff works for you, just use it - dont worry about which one has more sales / profits / hype.
You should be thankful that the competition is forcing Apple to improve their products and discount prices.
I've never found the iOS user experience as good as the reviews claim. It certainly isn't consistent like people pretend. Sure, neither is Android, but that's not the point here.
I think its one of those things that everyone kept telling themselves (because a large minority accepted it) and now its considered fact.
Maybe iOS is easier for a non-techie user than android, but its not so clear cut.
just being easier to use than android doesn't make it the perfect OS. The problem I have with iOS is its "one size fits all" policy where you get the default and that's all. It didn't fit me - and I had no option but to find a different device that worked for me.
There are still more non-apple people than apple people (ie. more people do not own an iPad for example than those who do), so that would seem to suggest that the marketing and blog hype does not paint the same picture as reality. The iPad may dominate the market, but its not a big market.
Yes, apple stuff is good, but I know a lot of people who are still interested in specs. And you just cannot assume that a device as inflexible as apple's is suitable for everyone. It isn't. It isn't even suitable for the majority of people.
iPads are only for people who want Apple stuff. Most (not all) people will either only buy apple or they will only buy non-apple. Very few people really care about the comparisons between them, except to rub it in to the opposition.
Otherwise, you're right - its irrelevant - but I'm making the argument from a different perspective.
Well let's be realistic, not a LOT of lost sales, only a few.
you may be right as far as what would have happened, and yet you're still thinking in terms of percentages.
They may well have sold hundreds of thousands of them by now...that's a LOT.
Not sure why I got modded flamebait above...
but the point is, we need A leader. and it seems that it doesn't matter who it is, people will find fault in them one way or another.
I'm just voicing my opinion that there is no perfect solution, and that this solution seems perfectly fine so long as you trust your leaders to protect you.
If this is not the case then you have a much bigger problem than this "big brother" system...
Its only creepy if you distrust the party using it.
So if you dont trust the current law enforcers, what is it you really want?
Do you want NO law enforcement? hardly a solution.
Do you want the law enforcement not to have good tools? criminals will probably always have at least as powerful tools at their disposal...why would you want to cripple the law enforcers?
So given that we need SOMEONE to do the job of police, and we need to be kept safe...just what DO you want?
To put it another way, if you distrust the people using this system, why? and how would they do their job effectively without it?
I take offence to this comment.
The comment is not in need of a fence.
Sorry, how would you go about selecting another provider with a better price?
I'm in Australia, and have recently tried shopping around for better energy rates. The first problem is that all companies charge virtually the same rates so its near impossible to differentiate between them. I would think that 99% of companies will pass on the costs of any carbon tax to the consumer. When one company increases their prices, the others usually follow. Same with fuel/petrol.
But again, the risk of those companies colluding to increase prices is the same risk regardless of whether they are paying a carbon tax. So unless they are colluding now, then they are not likely to collude when the tax is introduced. Add if they are colluding then that is illegal, and it needs to be stopped.
yes, it needs to be stopped...good luck with that...
In order to meet a deadline, you should drop features, not quality.
I guess this is something that really determines how good the project lead is...
The ones that aren't cancelled are the popular ones, and these often have regular price increases as they get more popular.
Gmail and search are exceptions, since they probably make enough money from them already.
Not that I expect free stuff from Google, they're a business and have to cover costs/make a profit etc.
How about watching DVDs?
You kind of need an optical drive for that.
Sure, you can get your media on iTunes, but the quality is terrible and it takes long enough to download that it completely defeats the purpose. It takes 5 minutes to hire a DVD from the video store vs 1-3 hours to download on iTunes, and iTunes normally costs MORE.
If you plan your entire week on Sunday, and then start all your downloads on sunday night, then good luck to you - I do not want your boring scheduled life.
Same goes for bittorrent - in the time it takes to download any movie, I could've been to the movie store, hired the movie, watched it, and then returned it.
Bittorrent is for people who are too tight to pay $4 for a movie rental, yet rich enough to afford the $50K lawsuit which no matter how much you deny it...is inevitable.
I should mention that I'm all for online content delivery, but even when it is available, its not yet good enough to replace physical media (including the delivery mechanism & time).
There's an easy solution.
Invalidate all patents, then fine the patent office a large sum for each "offense".
Granting patents like this should be illegal, and there should be penalties for the USPTO for any such occurrence.
"Fringe vocal minorities" could be at least as accurately used to describe FOSS zealots.
This is true, and is not a rebuttal of the post you replied to.
you owe me a new keyboard!
The tax itself will not force anyone to reduce their carbon emissions. The extra cost will just be passed on to the consumer and things will continue as before.
You need to think some more about how it works. The government charges the emitter per ton of carbon, but then compensates you using the money from the charge. You are, by default, in the same position as before. The energy company can raise their prices beyond the amount of compensation, but if they do that, you can simply select another provider with a better price. You can also compensate by investing in some household efficiencies - and thus reduce you consumption.
Under the scheme, there are incentives for both you to reduce consumption and the emitter to reduce emissions.
It's possible for price gouging to occur, but then, that has always been possible.
Sorry, how would you go about selecting another provider with a better price?
I'm in Australia, and have recently tried shopping around for better energy rates. The first problem is that all companies charge virtually the same rates so its near impossible to differentiate between them. I would think that 99% of companies will pass on the costs of any carbon tax to the consumer. When one company increases their prices, the others usually follow. Same with fuel/petrol.
My point was actually similar to what you said - that the carbon tax will likely put us in the same situation we are already in, just that we pay more and get paid more. It will take greener energy and fuels to actually create any benefit...and hopefully the carbon tax will allow a situation where green energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. At the moment it costs about 5.5c/KWh more - for 100% green electricity vs traditional electricity.
As I see it, a carbon tax always comes back to the consumer at the end of the day. By consumer I mean, anyone who's paying for stuff that results in carbon emissions.
The only way it can actually work is if someone decides to sell carbon-friendly stuff that is therefore cheaper (because it is not taxed) and use competition to push the heavy polluters out of the market.
The tax itself will not force anyone to reduce their carbon emissions. The extra cost will just be passed on to the consumer and things will continue as before.
It will be competition from greener companies that will drive the change. If greener products/services are offered much cheaper, and gain significant market share - this will force the not-so-green companies to rethink their strategy in order to stay in business.
Hopefully we do end up with something like this - and if so, the carbon tax will not have been worthless.
so basically he's looking for a job.
?? I thought the copyright holders get the say in what license the code is under.
If the author/copyright holder says the headers are not a copyright violation, then regardless of the license that would seem to indicate permission.
And if the copyright owner grants you permission to do something, then the license is irrelevant.
There's a really easy answer to this.
What would humans do if they found alien life on another planet?
Study them? Bring back "samples" for testing? Document everything...
Sound familiar?
...but now it's in pieces.
That's a shame. Have you still got the assembly instructions?
I can't fathom why anyone's having kids. The kids we have already are truly screwed.
Um, your logic doesn't work. Not having kids is 100% guaranteed to make the human race die out, and in just 100 years or so.
You need to think up a better solution, because that one, well, isn't one at all...
The boss of qantas recently gave himself a $2M payrise.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/travel/qantas-boss-wins-71pc-pay-hike/story-e6frg8rf-1226131646231
He also announced major job cuts whilst at a management press conference which happened to be at a 5 star hotel. It wasn't good PR.
"Qantas employees learning that they're going to lose their jobs, live from a five-star hotel press conference from a CEO that is out of his depth and out of touch with employees, his company and his country."
http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/qantas-to-announce-drastic-changes/story-e6frfq80-1226115770960
I dont work for qantas, but if I did, I wouldn't be too enthusiastic about the future of the company or my job.