The opposing "force" caused by earth's rotation is miniscule... making a net difference of perhaps about a quarter of one percent between a point on the equator and one of the poles. In practice, you do not need to consider it except only for extremely large (almost planetary-sized) masses.
Given even the simple advances that we've made so far in mind-machine interfaces, it's not altogether inconceivable that within the next 50 to 75 years, the technology will be perfected, and adapted for communication purposes, to effectively enable transmission of thought (conveying what a person thinks, envisions, remembers, or experiences) from one person to another possible as easily as we use a cell phone today (and on the darker side of things possibly even invasion or eavesdropping). The limiting factor in this matter is only technology, not anything fundamental about what makes thinking about something inherently different from any other private matter or communication.
So really, if, as you seem to suggest, something in a person's head should be respected as private because it *IS* in one's head, then why should something else that is also considered private be fair game?
No, it is singling out something because of political reasons.
No... it is not. It is simply telling the truth. The *ONLY* reason to conceal it from people is because of a predisposition they might have to avoid the products because of their ALREADY EXISTING prejudices, which have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the truth. Wanting it to stay unlabeled just to get a few more sales only fuels the perception that the organizations that make such products *DO* have something to hide (even if they do not), and give even more people cause to want to avoid it.
Who says it has to be considered a warning label? It's just saying what it is. Period. If consumers interpret it as a warning label, that's really their own problem, isn't it? Is it morally right to deliberately decide to not tell the whole truth to consumers about a product just because some percentage of them will happen to not like it and probably avoid those products?
To be fair... we already *KNOW* that consumers can't be trusted to make sensible decisions.
That doesn't mean that the free market can't work, however... it just means it's wisest to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
In this case, that would mean putting labels on things, and know that the consumer has the capability to make an informed choice (if they do not exercise that, that's their own problem).
"Hmm, there's a label on this about it being genetically modified. That must mean it's something bad."
No more so than the label "May contain nuts" on a box of chocolate covered almonds. It's not because it's bad, it's because it's a fact... and allowing the consumer to make an informed decision (even if "may contain nuts" on a box of chocolate covered almonds might treating a consumer like an idiot, it's still not misinformation).
So you think it's better to just keep people in the dark about the origins of they are eating, just because there's no evidence that it will do them any harm, and only because giving them the freedom to make an informed choice on the matter will probably cause them to choose to avoid it?
I read the article linked to in the summary, but did not notice any place where it mentioned the grounds that Apple attempted to use to get the evidence excluded.
I mean, aren't you required to give a judge a reason to not admit potentially relevant evidence?
And really, I'm compelled to wonder what possible reason they could have given that they seriously would think had even the slightest chance of flying...
If the only way to get apps on OS X is via the Mac App Store, where are those apps going to be built from? Windows?
They will be built on Mac, of course. The limitation hasn't hurt iOS development any.
Take this to its logical extreme in that developers need to upload a binary, get it signed by Apple and then run it off the Mac App Store - well, what's to keep end users from doing the same and writing their own apps, or better yet - using open-source apps?
Absolutely nothing is stopping them from writing their own apps or taking source code and compiling it for themselves to run it on their own machine. You can already do that with iOS apps without any help or approval from Apple. It's not very practical for distributing applications, however... except during test cycles of a specific (and fairly short) duration.
Hell, if that's the case, the FSF would be super happy because the only ways to get software onto OS X would be the Mac App Store, or via the developer program in order to compile from source. Which means the only way to distribute apps outside of the Mac App Store is via source code, making OS X one of the most "open" platforms around because you cannot distribute a binary - but only as source.
I actually hadn't considered that possibility. I suppose that it might happen that way. But I don't think it's likely.
Finally - there are classes of software not allowed by the Mac App Store - ones that cannot be self-contained (e.g., drivers, utility programs), demos (Microsoft Office Trial, anyone?)
Apple will simply turn a blind eye to such software, as it won't be of any practical use on a closed system.
The lockdown isn't happening because it's a computer...
No... the lockdown isn't happening because widespread use of the MacOSX app store as an exclusive means of installing software hasn't reached a critical mass yet. Give it a couple of years. As you yourself said, most people don't need a real computer anyways, so this isn't likely to matter to most people. Only to power users, who make up such a tiny percentage of computer users, that it is unlikely to matter to Apple.
What will keep some power users sticking with Apple (and probably draw new ones),.however, is the size of its user base, and the attractiveness of what will, for a short time, appear to be a vast and largely untapped market.
Apple's stance seems to be pretty typical of them: comply with the new rules or leave. This usually works for them, but this time, theyâ(TM)ve made a critical strategic error: leaving is often a better option...
I would put forward that this conclusion is actually only true right now, but I expect over the coming years that is liable to change.
As an increasing number of applications *DO* become available on the app store, I would suggest that a growing number of people are going to increasingly rely upon it. Eventually, I expect that a critical mass will be reached (I predict about 2 years from now), and Apple will shut the door to external sales on the Mac outside of jailbroken devices forever.
This will probably be cause for a lot of people to abandon the mac platform, but I expect that the remaining userbase will be sufficiently large by that point in time that other developers will eventually be drawn to writing for the platform, attracted by the promise of what will seem to them, initially at least, to be a largely untapped market.
And what happened with iOS is going to happen again with MacOSX.
Saying that it happened about 2684 years ago implies (at least to me) that they can date it between precisely 2683 and 2685 years. Does it not strike anyone else as odd that they could pinpoint something that long ago so precisely?
Cellphones transmit sound, and speech is just a subcategory of that.
When I said "telepathy", I meant what a person is *thinking*. This could include spoken words, but it could also include what is being seen, or even imagined or remembered.
I once heard a definition of an idiot: Someone doing the same thing again-and-again, but expecting different results (ref: movie '28 days').
Only if the individual has no reason to expect there to be circumstances outside of their control that are affecting the result, and the only reason they are repeating those steps is because those steps are an essential part of whatever process is being performed.
A person can get up at the same time every morning and have no compelling reason to genuinely expect that this day will be the same as the previous (because Groundhog day scenarios notwithstanding, it won't be).
Slashdot Mirror
But you get used to it... you adapt, and change the way you do stuff.
The opposing "force" caused by earth's rotation is miniscule... making a net difference of perhaps about a quarter of one percent between a point on the equator and one of the poles. In practice, you do not need to consider it except only for extremely large (almost planetary-sized) masses.
Why is it any different if it is in his head?
Given even the simple advances that we've made so far in mind-machine interfaces, it's not altogether inconceivable that within the next 50 to 75 years, the technology will be perfected, and adapted for communication purposes, to effectively enable transmission of thought (conveying what a person thinks, envisions, remembers, or experiences) from one person to another possible as easily as we use a cell phone today (and on the darker side of things possibly even invasion or eavesdropping). The limiting factor in this matter is only technology, not anything fundamental about what makes thinking about something inherently different from any other private matter or communication.
So really, if, as you seem to suggest, something in a person's head should be respected as private because it *IS* in one's head, then why should something else that is also considered private be fair game?
I was wondering if there was going to be a post with that sort of reference after I read the summary. Thank you for reaffirming my faith in nerd-dom.
No... it is not. It is simply telling the truth. The *ONLY* reason to conceal it from people is because of a predisposition they might have to avoid the products because of their ALREADY EXISTING prejudices, which have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the truth. Wanting it to stay unlabeled just to get a few more sales only fuels the perception that the organizations that make such products *DO* have something to hide (even if they do not), and give even more people cause to want to avoid it.
Who says it has to be considered a warning label? It's just saying what it is. Period. If consumers interpret it as a warning label, that's really their own problem, isn't it? Is it morally right to deliberately decide to not tell the whole truth to consumers about a product just because some percentage of them will happen to not like it and probably avoid those products?
Boooooooorrrrrring.
To be fair... we already *KNOW* that consumers can't be trusted to make sensible decisions.
That doesn't mean that the free market can't work, however... it just means it's wisest to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
In this case, that would mean putting labels on things, and know that the consumer has the capability to make an informed choice (if they do not exercise that, that's their own problem).
And so because there's no danger, it should be completely acceptable to simply not tell the consumer the origins of what it is that they are eating?
This reminds me greatly of a parent deciding to not tell a child what in a meal because they know the child will refuse to eat it.
Do you really believe that it s also acceptable for adults to be treated this way?
What is your definition of an "actual country"?
No more so than the label "May contain nuts" on a box of chocolate covered almonds. It's not because it's bad, it's because it's a fact... and allowing the consumer to make an informed decision (even if "may contain nuts" on a box of chocolate covered almonds might treating a consumer like an idiot, it's still not misinformation).
To be fair... "salmonberries" and "caterporn" don't sound very appetizing.
So you think it's better to just keep people in the dark about the origins of they are eating, just because there's no evidence that it will do them any harm, and only because giving them the freedom to make an informed choice on the matter will probably cause them to choose to avoid it?
... when the first thing that I think of when I see the headline is that's one way to ensure that he spends all of his money before he dies?
I read the article linked to in the summary, but did not notice any place where it mentioned the grounds that Apple attempted to use to get the evidence excluded.
I mean, aren't you required to give a judge a reason to not admit potentially relevant evidence?
And really, I'm compelled to wonder what possible reason they could have given that they seriously would think had even the slightest chance of flying...
I say it like it's something *I* regret.
It will be a boon for Apple... and will probably keep them relevant for at least another decade, if not two.
They will be built on Mac, of course. The limitation hasn't hurt iOS development any.
Absolutely nothing is stopping them from writing their own apps or taking source code and compiling it for themselves to run it on their own machine. You can already do that with iOS apps without any help or approval from Apple. It's not very practical for distributing applications, however... except during test cycles of a specific (and fairly short) duration.
I actually hadn't considered that possibility. I suppose that it might happen that way. But I don't think it's likely.
Apple will simply turn a blind eye to such software, as it won't be of any practical use on a closed system.
No... the lockdown isn't happening because widespread use of the MacOSX app store as an exclusive means of installing software hasn't reached a critical mass yet. Give it a couple of years. As you yourself said, most people don't need a real computer anyways, so this isn't likely to matter to most people. Only to power users, who make up such a tiny percentage of computer users, that it is unlikely to matter to Apple.
What will keep some power users sticking with Apple (and probably draw new ones),.however, is the size of its user base, and the attractiveness of what will, for a short time, appear to be a vast and largely untapped market.
Give what up, exactly?
I would put forward that this conclusion is actually only true right now, but I expect over the coming years that is liable to change.
As an increasing number of applications *DO* become available on the app store, I would suggest that a growing number of people are going to increasingly rely upon it. Eventually, I expect that a critical mass will be reached (I predict about 2 years from now), and Apple will shut the door to external sales on the Mac outside of jailbroken devices forever.
This will probably be cause for a lot of people to abandon the mac platform, but I expect that the remaining userbase will be sufficiently large by that point in time that other developers will eventually be drawn to writing for the platform, attracted by the promise of what will seem to them, initially at least, to be a largely untapped market.
And what happened with iOS is going to happen again with MacOSX.
This is Slashdot!
".. dated to about 2,684 years ago"
Saying that it happened about 2684 years ago implies (at least to me) that they can date it between precisely 2683 and 2685 years. Does it not strike anyone else as odd that they could pinpoint something that long ago so precisely?
Cellphones transmit sound, and speech is just a subcategory of that.
When I said "telepathy", I meant what a person is *thinking*. This could include spoken words, but it could also include what is being seen, or even imagined or remembered.
In the future, people will be communicating via technology-enabled telepathy. As commonplace as cellphones are now.
You're both right. But only because most people are just honestly jackasses.
Only if the individual has no reason to expect there to be circumstances outside of their control that are affecting the result, and the only reason they are repeating those steps is because those steps are an essential part of whatever process is being performed.
A person can get up at the same time every morning and have no compelling reason to genuinely expect that this day will be the same as the previous (because Groundhog day scenarios notwithstanding, it won't be).