You are right. I should not have included the "grandstanding" remark. My apologies. I initially interpreted the official statement as attacking this specific app, but that's not what is going on here.
The app wasn't to make confessions anyway, but to assist Catholics in the confession process. From the original article: "So, how does the app work? It leads you through an 'Examination of Conscience' to help you figure out what your real sins are -- and not just by retreading your run of the mill 10 Commandments. The sinful suggestions the app offers are inventive and even age appropriate."
I've read elsewhere that one of the priests who designed it, had a parishioner show up in the confession box with it, and used the app during confession to help remind him of his transgressions.
So this is just grandstanding by the Papacy. The app was never meant to replace "personal dialogue between penitents and their confessor." This is like saying Google Maps is bad because it somehow replaces the actual travel you're intending to take. Uh, no.
I suspect that Sortius_Nod meant "market fragmentation", which is very relevant to the topic at hand. The Android market appears to be very fragmented, with widely varying degrees of implementation, capacity, and support.
There is actually a patent on something like this. AT&T developed it a long time ago, sat on it for a decade, then sold the patent to Zoemail (a now-defunct Internet startup) in the early 2000s, which then sold the patent to someone else. The advantage of the Zoemail/AT&T approach was that the "keyed" addresses would be created to each recipient you sent to, and they would know you by that keyed e-mail, but you could turn those off whenever you wanted. Or give them expiration dates. The keyed address would be listed in your address book with each recipient.
It was a beautiful concept, frankly, but could have been implemented better.
I remember hearing ten years ago from friends in the video industry that Betamax -- in a new and extended high-def format -- had survived through the beginning of the 21st century, at least in Japan. Wikipedia claims the final time-of-death was 2002.
I have veins like that too -- and I also don't have a problem with watching the needle. Hey, I'm getting it done because it has to get done.
The grammar snob in me would like to point out that you meant "phlebotomist". But it's a tough word to spell. Probably a lot of points in Scrabble, too.
Lo said the industry had "seen this movie play several times", pointing to the Betamax vs. VHS video format war, Mac vs. Windows and various proprietary networking protocols that at one stage tried to compete with the now dominant TCP/IP. [emphasis added]
Mac vs. Windows is a silly comparison. Apple still makes a ton of money selling computers. It doesn't need to have Windows' market share to be successful; it just needs to keep customers happy and turn a profit. As long as the iPhone makes customers happy and turns a nice profit, Apple doesn't need to change its approach.
Even Betamax survived for a long time in certain markets. Sony didn't stop making Betamax equipment until 2001 or 2002.
I guess it depends on whether or not you define "success" as "market share" or "turning profit".
But where Apple goes "too far" with iProducts is that there is something like "Apple police" in that they attempt to force their will on the people who bought and own their products. They do this by force of legal action and other means.
Except, you know this when you buy the phone or tablet. You agree to it. You don't like the terms, don't buy the phone.
Maybe this would be better: I'm sure all Christians are like the Irish Republican Army, the Lord's Resistance Army, the National Liberation Front of Tripura, the Russian National Unity, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Hutaree.
These days, any externally facing facet of your organisation can be part of its PR. If you have lawyers acting for your company, your lawyers become your PR. That's dangerous. I hope they learned a lesson here.
Amen. Truth is, everyone at your organization engages in PR. Every single one. If your least valuable employee suddenly goes crazy and sends bombs in the mail to politicians, guess what: it's PR.
You are being ridiculous. There is no reason for the probability of someone driving in a road train running out of gas being any higher than the same for someone driving normally.
Except that if the driver is reading the paper or watching TV instead of paying attention to the car, they are less likely to notice their level of gas.
Do you disagree that letting drivers become more passive could introduce more situations like this?
You can trust the system, but the system doesn't know what's happening to your car. It knows what's happening to the leading truck. Suppose that a car in the convoy has a failure, a blown tire, anything that makes it slow down or change trajectory (maybe some bump or hole in the road). How do following cars avoid it if their drivers are sleeping, reading a book, having lunch?
Exactly. Or maybe it's not a failure, per se, but something as simple as running out of gas? Is the system going to communicate all this information to the lead driver? Is that driver going to be responsible for alerting individual drivers that they need to jump out of the train to fuel up? Will the train just automatically pull into rest areas/gas stations and have *everyone* fuel up?
These are not insurmountable questions, but they do suggest a slower adoption rate (or smaller market) for the technology.
Well, that's what Apple wants, isn't it? Hello capitalism!
Two expectations for this...
a. Apple is going to stop including CD/DVD drives with some of its computers, particularly low-end.
b. The Mac App store is going to be the only way to install apps on your Apple TV (in the future).
Well, Bush was ridiculous in that way. Whenever he spoke, they would set up "protest zones" several blocks away. You could only protest within those zones, far out of sight of news cameras or anyone really following the President.
Obama seems to have swung back from that, somewhat, since there have been civilians with automatic rifles and loaded pistols walking around his events.
Truth be told, Matthews and Olberman would be down in the coal mine with Beck and Limbaugh, and a whole lotta other TV news personalities. (I hesitate to call them "journalists".)
If America was like the Obama administration, Fox News would have been squashed a long time ago, and media types like Beck and Limbaugh would be quickly losing weight in a rock quarry somewhere.
Remember how even the liberal news organization had to come to the aid of Fox News to keep them in the press pool? Liberals are only tolerant of themselves.
And then Obama sent in troops with big guns and rounded up all the other news organizations too, and had them all thrown in prison. Now Bill O'Reilly is sharing a cell with Anderson Cooper and Keith Olberman.
Oh wait, that's not what happened. The other news stations said, Hey, that's not right, and Obama backed down.
You said, "Liberals are only tolerant of themselves" but, one sentence earlier, you said "liberal news organizations had to come to the aid of Fox News". At face value, it sounds like you are contradicting yourself. Which is it? Do they only tolerate themselves, or do they sometimes stand up even for Fox News?
In America, you can say whatever the hell you want about the government -- even if it is slanderous, false, crazy, whatever -- and unless you are directly threatening to kill somebody, you can get away with it. That is NOTHING like a totalitarian government. If the Obama administration was really like China, Fox News would have been squashed a long time ago, and media types like Beck and Limbaugh would be quickly losing weight in a rock quarry somewhere.
This is why I only anonymize and encrypt nonsensitive data, like MySpace traffic, dating sites, etc. You want my shopping wish list on Amazon?! CRACK MY ENCRYPTION, NSA!!! But that stuff about overthrowing the government is wide open. Throws 'em way off.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right. I should not have included the "grandstanding" remark. My apologies. I initially interpreted the official statement as attacking this specific app, but that's not what is going on here.
You're right.
I guess this squashes my idea for a "My Virtual Pope" app. At least we can still buy Pope on a Rope... oh wait, it's no longer available.
The app wasn't to make confessions anyway, but to assist Catholics in the confession process. From the original article: "So, how does the app work? It leads you through an 'Examination of Conscience' to help you figure out what your real sins are -- and not just by retreading your run of the mill 10 Commandments. The sinful suggestions the app offers are inventive and even age appropriate."
I've read elsewhere that one of the priests who designed it, had a parishioner show up in the confession box with it, and used the app during confession to help remind him of his transgressions.
So this is just grandstanding by the Papacy. The app was never meant to replace "personal dialogue between penitents and their confessor." This is like saying Google Maps is bad because it somehow replaces the actual travel you're intending to take. Uh, no.
I suspect that Sortius_Nod meant "market fragmentation", which is very relevant to the topic at hand. The Android market appears to be very fragmented, with widely varying degrees of implementation, capacity, and support.
There is actually a patent on something like this. AT&T developed it a long time ago, sat on it for a decade, then sold the patent to Zoemail (a now-defunct Internet startup) in the early 2000s, which then sold the patent to someone else. The advantage of the Zoemail/AT&T approach was that the "keyed" addresses would be created to each recipient you sent to, and they would know you by that keyed e-mail, but you could turn those off whenever you wanted. Or give them expiration dates. The keyed address would be listed in your address book with each recipient.
It was a beautiful concept, frankly, but could have been implemented better.
I remember hearing ten years ago from friends in the video industry that Betamax -- in a new and extended high-def format -- had survived through the beginning of the 21st century, at least in Japan. Wikipedia claims the final time-of-death was 2002.
I have veins like that too -- and I also don't have a problem with watching the needle. Hey, I'm getting it done because it has to get done.
The grammar snob in me would like to point out that you meant "phlebotomist". But it's a tough word to spell. Probably a lot of points in Scrabble, too.
Lo said the industry had "seen this movie play several times", pointing to the Betamax vs. VHS video format war, Mac vs. Windows and various proprietary networking protocols that at one stage tried to compete with the now dominant TCP/IP. [emphasis added]
Mac vs. Windows is a silly comparison. Apple still makes a ton of money selling computers. It doesn't need to have Windows' market share to be successful; it just needs to keep customers happy and turn a profit. As long as the iPhone makes customers happy and turns a nice profit, Apple doesn't need to change its approach.
Even Betamax survived for a long time in certain markets. Sony didn't stop making Betamax equipment until 2001 or 2002.
I guess it depends on whether or not you define "success" as "market share" or "turning profit".
But where Apple goes "too far" with iProducts is that there is something like "Apple police" in that they attempt to force their will on the people who bought and own their products. They do this by force of legal action and other means.
Except, you know this when you buy the phone or tablet. You agree to it. You don't like the terms, don't buy the phone.
Point taken.
Maybe this would be better: I'm sure all Christians are like the Irish Republican Army, the Lord's Resistance Army, the National Liberation Front of Tripura, the Russian National Unity, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Hutaree.
Shoot first, ask questions later.
Also: no good deed goes unpunished.
These days, any externally facing facet of your organisation can be part of its PR. If you have lawyers acting for your company, your lawyers become your PR. That's dangerous. I hope they learned a lesson here.
Amen. Truth is, everyone at your organization engages in PR. Every single one. If your least valuable employee suddenly goes crazy and sends bombs in the mail to politicians, guess what: it's PR.
Except that if the driver is reading the paper or watching TV instead of paying attention to the car, they are less likely to notice their level of gas.
Do you disagree that letting drivers become more passive could introduce more situations like this?
Exactly. Or maybe it's not a failure, per se, but something as simple as running out of gas? Is the system going to communicate all this information to the lead driver? Is that driver going to be responsible for alerting individual drivers that they need to jump out of the train to fuel up? Will the train just automatically pull into rest areas/gas stations and have *everyone* fuel up?
These are not insurmountable questions, but they do suggest a slower adoption rate (or smaller market) for the technology.
Uh... the word "shuttle" is in the summary... end of the second sentence.
Well, that's what Apple wants, isn't it? Hello capitalism! Two expectations for this... a. Apple is going to stop including CD/DVD drives with some of its computers, particularly low-end. b. The Mac App store is going to be the only way to install apps on your Apple TV (in the future).
There's a Congressional speech from Bernie Sanders about this very thing... worth watching, IMO.
Gee, when you put it that way, it almost sounds hard.
Yeah... I think I remember hearing that too.
FTA: "Every odor we tested aroused the participants," said Hirsch. ... "Nothing turns a man off."
Now, what pie will arouse women? THAT'S the pie I need.
Well, Bush was ridiculous in that way. Whenever he spoke, they would set up "protest zones" several blocks away. You could only protest within those zones, far out of sight of news cameras or anyone really following the President.
Obama seems to have swung back from that, somewhat, since there have been civilians with automatic rifles and loaded pistols walking around his events.
Truth be told, Matthews and Olberman would be down in the coal mine with Beck and Limbaugh, and a whole lotta other TV news personalities. (I hesitate to call them "journalists".)
If America was like the Obama administration, Fox News would have been squashed a long time ago, and media types like Beck and Limbaugh would be quickly losing weight in a rock quarry somewhere.
Remember how even the liberal news organization had to come to the aid of Fox News to keep them in the press pool? Liberals are only tolerant of themselves.
And then Obama sent in troops with big guns and rounded up all the other news organizations too, and had them all thrown in prison. Now Bill O'Reilly is sharing a cell with Anderson Cooper and Keith Olberman.
Oh wait, that's not what happened. The other news stations said, Hey, that's not right, and Obama backed down.
You said, "Liberals are only tolerant of themselves" but, one sentence earlier, you said "liberal news organizations had to come to the aid of Fox News". At face value, it sounds like you are contradicting yourself. Which is it? Do they only tolerate themselves, or do they sometimes stand up even for Fox News?
Sir (or ma'am), I truly wish I had mod points.
In America, you can say whatever the hell you want about the government -- even if it is slanderous, false, crazy, whatever -- and unless you are directly threatening to kill somebody, you can get away with it. That is NOTHING like a totalitarian government. If the Obama administration was really like China, Fox News would have been squashed a long time ago, and media types like Beck and Limbaugh would be quickly losing weight in a rock quarry somewhere.
This is why I only anonymize and encrypt nonsensitive data, like MySpace traffic, dating sites, etc. You want my shopping wish list on Amazon?! CRACK MY ENCRYPTION, NSA!!! But that stuff about overthrowing the government is wide open. Throws 'em way off.