In these cases, access is limited (by line-of-sight), or the information does not provide back-tracability. That no longer happens when posted online.
Or would you like to prove this isn't a big issue by posting your phone number, address, license plate number, and check routing/account numbers here for us?
You expect this isn't their intention for monetization, one way or the other? Either they will serve targeted ads, sell to someone else who will, charge the users to play, or go out of business.
So, if the teacher knows they're sexually active, by the letter of the law they would be contributing to the delinquincy of a minor
Good luck proving what the teacher knows!
Right, the DA would need to be damn confident. He did say he didn't want to prosecute anyone for it.
In other words, as long as you teach all the kids about condoms every year, and not just the ones engaging in illegal underage sex, you're fine.
Then what's the issue? Has anyone suggested otherwise?
The DA seems to imply that the law does not take this possibility into account. Thus, the law would need to be ammended to make sure that this (totally reasonable) exception is made.
Why would one offer them 100 mio for it if it's so worthless, for one.
To those thinking it's worthless (not you, I assume), they forget that FourSquare has location and behavior data on all of its users. It's a goldmine for targeted advertising.
Here on Slashdot, many people may not realize that other people go to places called 'bars' to drink alcohol. FourSquare knows when you are visiting bars (known to the social butterfly as 'bar-hopping'), and where you are currently, and start serving ads for other local bars or pizza places with a high expectation that you are likely interested in their services.
Companies will pay big money for this kind of audience and advertising potential. Maybe even 100 million dollars.
Agreed. And following the analogy, the DA is saying that telling children to use seatbelts while driving underage (rather than telling them not to drive while underage) would fall under the state's juvenile delinquincy statute. Thus, teachers who know their students are commiting crimes and tell them to be safe while doing so would be illegal.
Re:Like Woz didn't move on a LONG time ago?
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 1
For years, people have wanted phones to be smaller, and ridiculed any slightly bigger devices as "bricks". But because it's Apple, they get praise for that very same thing.
And note that, because it was a phone, the iPhone was praised for its small size. Note that, because it is not a phone that one expects to fit in their pocket, the iPad fills the 'something I would otherwise use my smartphone for, but a larger screen is useful' niche.
For that level of coverage, I expect it to be revolutionary, and the fact that it isn't is telling. Simply "not being pointless" isn't good enough for such overwhelming hype and free media coverage.
Consider how many stories Slashdot gives the Apple PCs - that level of coverage is proportionate to their market share. The Iphones and especially the Ipad seem to be less than this, so why are they so special? If Slashdot had turned into Apple's marketing arm, I wonder why they don't give us daily Mac stories too.
Of course it's a lot of hype, but let's be honest: it's a followup to a market leader in the mobile device (non-PC) market. That said, look at how much press Linux on the desktop gets for its market share. I've never expected/. to be reasonable or unbiased.
My, if only computers could do those things you list.
And again, we're not supplanting PCs here. We're talking mostly about people who don't want a netbook, laptop or smart phone (for various reasons), yet do want to consume media from their living room or bedroom. If the iPad does it smaller/lighter, cheaper, and/or better than a smartphone or laptop (it does, for certain circumstances), then it will be used for them because the PC isn't present in the homes we're discussing (or it is, but the person has disposable income) and doesn't enter into it.
It's a niche product, and niches exist because general-purpose products don't always serve special-purpose needs well. It's useful, no doubt, but like with the iPhone the only remaining question is how large the niche is.
You're probably right. For that matter, I think it is actually more correct to think that reasonably religious (i.e. not the ones bound for the loony bin) people probably have more stable families than atheists. In fact, I wonder sometimes if I should act a bit religious if I ever had kids. It's a nice safe sandbox for the kids to rebel in.
If by "reasonably religious", you refer to 'not an extremist' rather than 'kinda sorta follow it', than I agree. As I alluded to before, I suspect it's the people who don't take their faith seriously (the 'lukewarm') and those who distort their faith to chase an agenda (the 'crazies', like the Westboro Baptist Church) who inflate the numbers of christians (with a small 'c', inding those who follow something other than Christ) getting divorces. Same with the Jewish numbers (as most jews associate for ancestoral reasons, much of Israel doesn't even believe in God).
That said, I don't think it's about providing the kids a different place to rebel. I think it's about a system of support through the Church (again, requiring the Church involved to be focused on Biblical teachings, not some agenda or 'just for the community'), a strong father providing leadership, and a strong mother providing help and support. Even more importantly, it's about the two parents setting a good example for their children in the way they love and care for each other: monkey see, monkey do. I think pretending to be religious would more likely backfire, as it's missing the components of the religion that would make for a strong family, and the kids will likely see through any hypocrisy and will only lead them to further rebellion.
While I agree with your interpretation (more Christians and Jews get divorced), I also don't think that just this one statistic shows the whole story. For example, an atheist is probably less likely to get a marriage in the first place, and is likely to have had more sexual partners. It's also based on self-identifying as the religion, which isn't always accurate (for example, are they practicing Christians, or do they just tell people that so they aren't shunned?).
Just pulling stuff out of my ass here (too lazy to look up statistics), but I don't think this statistic alone disproves the GGGP's position that divorce is rampant and causes harm to children and religion is not to blame significantly more than any other factor. In other words, don't go after religion since it isn't the cause (at least, no more than 5-10% in this statistic), find what that common ground with atheists is and attack it.
No, using a condom is not illegal. Having sex may be illegal for people of a certain age, but they don't get charged with an extra crime because they also used a condom. Your logic sucks.
No, but encouraging 16 year olds to use a condom at their age is providing instruction in what to do while breaking a state law. The DA's point is that the teachers are being required to teach the children how to do something that is illegal for them to do now. So, if the teacher knows they're sexually active, by the letter of the law they would be contributing to the delinquincy of a minor (instructing them for actions performed while breaking the law, rather than teaching them not to).
The DA has a point that the laws can be counter to each other, in the event the teacher is aware they are sexually active. While teaching children to do things they can not legally do yet (safety with alcohol before 21, driving lessons begin before they can drive on their own), he isn't saying it's a crime in all cases. I think the car analogy would be requiring teachers to show students how to hot-wire a car, even if the teacher knew the student was planning on stealing cars. It's only a crime if the teacher knows the student will use the info to commit a crime.
So, a quick fix in this case is to use two teachers: one who teaches general sexual education and knows that students are having sex, and a second to teach contraceptives. I can't say I disagree with the DA that kids are having sex too young, and I also think I agree with the DA in that the laws as written leave teachers open to prosecution in some cases. So, the laws probably need a tweak, such as exempting teachers from being prosecuted for the actions of pupils related to standardised lessons. In other words, as long as you teach all the kids about condoms every year, and not just the ones engaging in illegal underage sex, you're fine.
Re:Like Woz didn't move on a LONG time ago?
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 1
What does the Ipad do that no other product does?
What does a Television do that no other product does? Nothing, it just does a lot of things more conveniently or cheaper. Same with the iPad.
The iPad may still fail, but that's the risk Apple takes. I'm betting the market for an iPad is bigger than for a netbook, just because that for the netbook is so tiny.
Would it not be impossible to form a "well regulated militia" in the event of dire need if those who would otherwise form the militia had no access to firearms previously?
In other words, 'firearms are necessary for a militia and thus we have the right to bear them', not 'we have the right to form militias, and only then can we possess firearms'.
I feel that 50% of the states is too high a bar. I think it should be either 1/3 or 1/4. In either case there would clearly not be a national consensus that it should be a law.
Two thoughts. 1) Concensus over a yes/no decision generally requires a majority opinion, thus 50% of states. 2) Constitutional issues should not be easily overturned by this process, hence the high bar. More importantly, setting the bar at 1/4 could result in endless flip-flops (both sides could get 1/4 state support, then what?). That's the reason why it's set up this way: federal gov't decides, unless 50% of states disagree.
Secret is things that the powers that be would rather aren't publicly available. Top Secret is things that would significantly impact the armed forces abilities to do their job.
Not quite, ANY classified document is so classified because of its potential to cause harm to national security. As well, all material is classified to its highest level (so the entire video would be classified secret for even the chance of a single frame of secret info, until explicitly scrubbed). Restricted is the level for 'we'd rather this not be public, but there is no national security issue'.
You do bring up a better point, though. The leaker may have had clearance for the video but not the encryption keys.
Re:Like Woz didn't move on a LONG time ago?
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 1
What people don't seem to realize is that a keyboard is a negligible cost, in almost every (expense, weight, space) way, addition to a portable computer in all but the most extreme cases. It also provides you with a somewhat handy screen protector. Make it so it folds out of the way as you have suggested and it's a no-brainer.
Small, but not negligible. You forgot the complexity increase of a hinge or slider, which is necessary if you want to minimize the weight and space tradeoffs. Particularly since Apple like the uni-body design, this is certainly non-negligible.
And again, if the target use-case isn't to do a lot of typing (it's not) and the cost is non-zero (it is), then the decision is not a no-brainer. There will be a tradeoff one way or the other.
Tablets are just sadly n a bad place on the venn diagram of the trade off between cost and functionality.
I can almost see it as a media device. Almost. Does it have a built in stand? And no flash?
Again, good reasons why you wouldn't buy an iPad or why it may not succeed as an ultra-common device, but I don't see anything compelling that says nobody should buy an iPad. If the shoe fits...
Re:Like Woz didn't move on a LONG time ago?
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 1
I'm not trying to say that you should buy an iPad. What I am saying is that there are customers out there for whom an iPad would be a better purchase than a netbook. Your claim was that the iPad is not a better device for anyone, and that's simply not true.
Hell, I don't even disagree with you as far as preferences. I own an Asus netbook (for classroom and travel use) and a Motorola Droid (because I wanted a physical keyboard). My only Apple product is an old 60GB video that I bought used from a friend who replaced theirs with an iTouch. I'm no iPad shill.
However, there is definitely a place where I could see the iPad being better than my current devices. It's not something I can pass off as pointless, it overlaps in features and uses with other products, but has its own niche. I would no more say that a laptop is pointless because my desktop and netbook to all I need. Just because I don't need or want a laptop does not detract from its usefulness for others.
Re:Like Woz didn't move on a LONG time ago?
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I suspect the iPad doesn't have a replaceable battery either.
The replacement battery is a new (or refurbed) iPad, same as for iPods.
Re:Like Woz didn't move on a LONG time ago?
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Why would I want a big, phoneless iPhone designed for people with hands the size of Peter Mayhew's, precisely?
For the same reasons people want iPhones, and wish the screen were bigger when reading/watching for a long period of time, or wanted to watch something with a small group of people.
Apple has had plenty of "oops that was a big old miss" products they tried to market as "revolutionary." I expect the iPad to go the way of the Macbook Air - everything it does, a touchscreen Netbook does better and for less cost.
Not revolutionary, but not pointless either. I wouldn't say a touchscreen netbook does things 'better', though. While the Netbook wins on number of applications, versatility, and cost, it seems to lose on battery life, size/weight (due to the keyboard), and ease of use.
So if you want a small touchscreen computer, go with the netbook. If you want easy access to a web browser, movies, and text from your couch or bed, go with an iPad. Only time will tell if there's a large enough desire in that market that the 'revolutionary' iPad won't go over like the 'revolutionary' netbook.
Right, but the terror of threatening individual citizen's lives was compounded to threatening all citizen's financial wellbeing. As far as spreading terror, disrupting the economy is alright, killing people seemingly at random is more effective, but killing people pseudo-randomly while disrupting the economy is most effective.
The other importance of the ads is that the hosts themselves use and enjoy the service. Twit especially, as Leo makes it a point to use all the products without being comped for them. He only did ads for Ford Sync after buying himself a new Mustang and using it himself. GoToMeeting and Audible are two other services he uses exclusively and raves about because he is happy with the product, and that has made them satisfied long-term sponsors of the show.
In other words, turn it from being an advertisement to an endorsement. Of course, it means your pool of advertisers is smaller (they need to make good products and the podcaster needs to use them), but 3 long-term happy sponsors is better than trying to find 3 short-term sponsors every month.
If the group appeared to be armed with AK-47s and RPGs, with one of them appearing to reach a firing position. I expect they would be glad they killed a hostile enemy, until they learned that was not the case. At that point, their coping mechanism kicks in.
Agreed. They both abstract to the same principle (a linear collection of characters), but the implementation is an important difference for anyone who plans to use one effectively. It's the same way that a binary tree, linked list, and an array are all lists, but if a programmer ignores their implementation he can be in for a world of hurt.
April fools or not, when something seems patently ridiculous, it should be one's duty to verify the claim before accepting it as fact.
Which he did, although via the roundabout method of sending troops to investigate rather than calling the station. Although, the article said communication had been cut off, so he probably expected a faster answer from the troops.
You don't see people calling air raids every time the Onion has a bowel movement.
I don't see these price fluctuations at all. It may be that I'm smart enough to negotiate instead of just accepting the advertised price.
But unless you have a brand new ISP trying to break into the market on new infrastructure (I doubt it, though I'd like to hear if it's true) this type of thing won't happen. We're not talking about Verizon vs. Comcast, we're talking Comcast vs. NewCo (some theoretical startup).
There is always a better deal waiting for you if you're willing to walk away. Fools forget that, then bitch that they pay too much.
And this again underscores the big problem when it comes to broadband in the US. There isn't always somewhere to walk away to, because of the local monopolies. In the US we're lucky to have 3 choices for ISP (a DSL, Cable, and maybe Fiber), and each are a large company providing different levels of service. The ISPs know that it's unlikely people will leave in large numbers, because there is no better deal for similar service available to them.
In Europe and elsewhere it's common to have 5 ISPs sharing the infrastructure, meaning that it's possible to get up and walk away and have actual competition amongst the companies instead of the token competition we have now. That's why the UK pays roughly 50% the US average per MBps source.
The incumbent charges too much nearly everywhere, using it to finance predatory pricing in the area of an upstart competition until they go out of business, then returns the pricing to its former level.
Basically, any new ISP would need equally large war coffers (such as Google) to gain a foothold.
I'm under no belief that anyone, even soldiers, is immune from making mistakes. I find it harsh to judge actions made in the field by claiming that it's obvious after watching an annotated version of the video multiple times in a comfortable chair. Mistakes are going to happen, the best anyone can do is put guards up to limit them.
Also, keep in mind that nearly everyone these pilots see with a cylindrical object on their shoulder is wielding an RPG. Expectations play a big part in all this.
Slashdot Mirror
In these cases, access is limited (by line-of-sight), or the information does not provide back-tracability. That no longer happens when posted online.
Or would you like to prove this isn't a big issue by posting your phone number, address, license plate number, and check routing/account numbers here for us?
Thank god FourSquare didn't sell out.
You expect this isn't their intention for monetization, one way or the other? Either they will serve targeted ads, sell to someone else who will, charge the users to play, or go out of business.
So, if the teacher knows they're sexually active, by the letter of the law they would be contributing to the delinquincy of a minor
Good luck proving what the teacher knows!
Right, the DA would need to be damn confident. He did say he didn't want to prosecute anyone for it.
In other words, as long as you teach all the kids about condoms every year, and not just the ones engaging in illegal underage sex, you're fine.
Then what's the issue? Has anyone suggested otherwise?
The DA seems to imply that the law does not take this possibility into account. Thus, the law would need to be ammended to make sure that this (totally reasonable) exception is made.
Why would one offer them 100 mio for it if it's so worthless, for one.
To those thinking it's worthless (not you, I assume), they forget that FourSquare has location and behavior data on all of its users. It's a goldmine for targeted advertising.
Here on Slashdot, many people may not realize that other people go to places called 'bars' to drink alcohol. FourSquare knows when you are visiting bars (known to the social butterfly as 'bar-hopping'), and where you are currently, and start serving ads for other local bars or pizza places with a high expectation that you are likely interested in their services.
Companies will pay big money for this kind of audience and advertising potential. Maybe even 100 million dollars.
Agreed. And following the analogy, the DA is saying that telling children to use seatbelts while driving underage (rather than telling them not to drive while underage) would fall under the state's juvenile delinquincy statute. Thus, teachers who know their students are commiting crimes and tell them to be safe while doing so would be illegal.
For years, people have wanted phones to be smaller, and ridiculed any slightly bigger devices as "bricks". But because it's Apple, they get praise for that very same thing.
And note that, because it was a phone, the iPhone was praised for its small size. Note that, because it is not a phone that one expects to fit in their pocket, the iPad fills the 'something I would otherwise use my smartphone for, but a larger screen is useful' niche.
For that level of coverage, I expect it to be revolutionary, and the fact that it isn't is telling. Simply "not being pointless" isn't good enough for such overwhelming hype and free media coverage.
Consider how many stories Slashdot gives the Apple PCs - that level of coverage is proportionate to their market share. The Iphones and especially the Ipad seem to be less than this, so why are they so special? If Slashdot had turned into Apple's marketing arm, I wonder why they don't give us daily Mac stories too.
Of course it's a lot of hype, but let's be honest: it's a followup to a market leader in the mobile device (non-PC) market. That said, look at how much press Linux on the desktop gets for its market share. I've never expected /. to be reasonable or unbiased.
My, if only computers could do those things you list.
And again, we're not supplanting PCs here. We're talking mostly about people who don't want a netbook, laptop or smart phone (for various reasons), yet do want to consume media from their living room or bedroom. If the iPad does it smaller/lighter, cheaper, and/or better than a smartphone or laptop (it does, for certain circumstances), then it will be used for them because the PC isn't present in the homes we're discussing (or it is, but the person has disposable income) and doesn't enter into it.
It's a niche product, and niches exist because general-purpose products don't always serve special-purpose needs well. It's useful, no doubt, but like with the iPhone the only remaining question is how large the niche is.
You're probably right. For that matter, I think it is actually more correct to think that reasonably religious (i.e. not the ones bound for the loony bin) people probably have more stable families than atheists. In fact, I wonder sometimes if I should act a bit religious if I ever had kids. It's a nice safe sandbox for the kids to rebel in.
If by "reasonably religious", you refer to 'not an extremist' rather than 'kinda sorta follow it', than I agree. As I alluded to before, I suspect it's the people who don't take their faith seriously (the 'lukewarm') and those who distort their faith to chase an agenda (the 'crazies', like the Westboro Baptist Church) who inflate the numbers of christians (with a small 'c', inding those who follow something other than Christ) getting divorces. Same with the Jewish numbers (as most jews associate for ancestoral reasons, much of Israel doesn't even believe in God).
That said, I don't think it's about providing the kids a different place to rebel. I think it's about a system of support through the Church (again, requiring the Church involved to be focused on Biblical teachings, not some agenda or 'just for the community'), a strong father providing leadership, and a strong mother providing help and support. Even more importantly, it's about the two parents setting a good example for their children in the way they love and care for each other: monkey see, monkey do. I think pretending to be religious would more likely backfire, as it's missing the components of the religion that would make for a strong family, and the kids will likely see through any hypocrisy and will only lead them to further rebellion.
Everything else was reasonable I think.
While I agree with your interpretation (more Christians and Jews get divorced), I also don't think that just this one statistic shows the whole story. For example, an atheist is probably less likely to get a marriage in the first place, and is likely to have had more sexual partners. It's also based on self-identifying as the religion, which isn't always accurate (for example, are they practicing Christians, or do they just tell people that so they aren't shunned?).
Just pulling stuff out of my ass here (too lazy to look up statistics), but I don't think this statistic alone disproves the GGGP's position that divorce is rampant and causes harm to children and religion is not to blame significantly more than any other factor. In other words, don't go after religion since it isn't the cause (at least, no more than 5-10% in this statistic), find what that common ground with atheists is and attack it.
No, using a condom is not illegal. Having sex may be illegal for people of a certain age, but they don't get charged with an extra crime because they also used a condom. Your logic sucks.
No, but encouraging 16 year olds to use a condom at their age is providing instruction in what to do while breaking a state law. The DA's point is that the teachers are being required to teach the children how to do something that is illegal for them to do now. So, if the teacher knows they're sexually active, by the letter of the law they would be contributing to the delinquincy of a minor (instructing them for actions performed while breaking the law, rather than teaching them not to).
The DA has a point that the laws can be counter to each other, in the event the teacher is aware they are sexually active. While teaching children to do things they can not legally do yet (safety with alcohol before 21, driving lessons begin before they can drive on their own), he isn't saying it's a crime in all cases. I think the car analogy would be requiring teachers to show students how to hot-wire a car, even if the teacher knew the student was planning on stealing cars. It's only a crime if the teacher knows the student will use the info to commit a crime.
So, a quick fix in this case is to use two teachers: one who teaches general sexual education and knows that students are having sex, and a second to teach contraceptives. I can't say I disagree with the DA that kids are having sex too young, and I also think I agree with the DA in that the laws as written leave teachers open to prosecution in some cases. So, the laws probably need a tweak, such as exempting teachers from being prosecuted for the actions of pupils related to standardised lessons. In other words, as long as you teach all the kids about condoms every year, and not just the ones engaging in illegal underage sex, you're fine.
What does the Ipad do that no other product does?
What does a Television do that no other product does? Nothing, it just does a lot of things more conveniently or cheaper. Same with the iPad.
The iPad may still fail, but that's the risk Apple takes. I'm betting the market for an iPad is bigger than for a netbook, just because that for the netbook is so tiny.
Would it not be impossible to form a "well regulated militia" in the event of dire need if those who would otherwise form the militia had no access to firearms previously?
In other words, 'firearms are necessary for a militia and thus we have the right to bear them', not 'we have the right to form militias, and only then can we possess firearms'.
I feel that 50% of the states is too high a bar. I think it should be either 1/3 or 1/4. In either case there would clearly not be a national consensus that it should be a law.
Two thoughts. 1) Concensus over a yes/no decision generally requires a majority opinion, thus 50% of states. 2) Constitutional issues should not be easily overturned by this process, hence the high bar. More importantly, setting the bar at 1/4 could result in endless flip-flops (both sides could get 1/4 state support, then what?). That's the reason why it's set up this way: federal gov't decides, unless 50% of states disagree.
Secret is things that the powers that be would rather aren't publicly available. Top Secret is things that would significantly impact the armed forces abilities to do their job.
Not quite, ANY classified document is so classified because of its potential to cause harm to national security. As well, all material is classified to its highest level (so the entire video would be classified secret for even the chance of a single frame of secret info, until explicitly scrubbed). Restricted is the level for 'we'd rather this not be public, but there is no national security issue'.
You do bring up a better point, though. The leaker may have had clearance for the video but not the encryption keys.
What people don't seem to realize is that a keyboard is a negligible cost, in almost every (expense, weight, space) way, addition to a portable computer in all but the most extreme cases. It also provides you with a somewhat handy screen protector. Make it so it folds out of the way as you have suggested and it's a no-brainer.
Small, but not negligible. You forgot the complexity increase of a hinge or slider, which is necessary if you want to minimize the weight and space tradeoffs. Particularly since Apple like the uni-body design, this is certainly non-negligible.
And again, if the target use-case isn't to do a lot of typing (it's not) and the cost is non-zero (it is), then the decision is not a no-brainer. There will be a tradeoff one way or the other.
Tablets are just sadly n a bad place on the venn diagram of the trade off between cost and functionality.
I can almost see it as a media device. Almost. Does it have a built in stand? And no flash?
Again, good reasons why you wouldn't buy an iPad or why it may not succeed as an ultra-common device, but I don't see anything compelling that says nobody should buy an iPad. If the shoe fits...
I'm not trying to say that you should buy an iPad. What I am saying is that there are customers out there for whom an iPad would be a better purchase than a netbook. Your claim was that the iPad is not a better device for anyone, and that's simply not true.
Hell, I don't even disagree with you as far as preferences. I own an Asus netbook (for classroom and travel use) and a Motorola Droid (because I wanted a physical keyboard). My only Apple product is an old 60GB video that I bought used from a friend who replaced theirs with an iTouch. I'm no iPad shill.
However, there is definitely a place where I could see the iPad being better than my current devices. It's not something I can pass off as pointless, it overlaps in features and uses with other products, but has its own niche. I would no more say that a laptop is pointless because my desktop and netbook to all I need. Just because I don't need or want a laptop does not detract from its usefulness for others.
I suspect the iPad doesn't have a replaceable battery either.
The replacement battery is a new (or refurbed) iPad, same as for iPods.
Why would I want a big, phoneless iPhone designed for people with hands the size of Peter Mayhew's, precisely?
For the same reasons people want iPhones, and wish the screen were bigger when reading/watching for a long period of time, or wanted to watch something with a small group of people.
Apple has had plenty of "oops that was a big old miss" products they tried to market as "revolutionary." I expect the iPad to go the way of the Macbook Air - everything it does, a touchscreen Netbook does better and for less cost.
Not revolutionary, but not pointless either. I wouldn't say a touchscreen netbook does things 'better', though. While the Netbook wins on number of applications, versatility, and cost, it seems to lose on battery life, size/weight (due to the keyboard), and ease of use.
So if you want a small touchscreen computer, go with the netbook. If you want easy access to a web browser, movies, and text from your couch or bed, go with an iPad. Only time will tell if there's a large enough desire in that market that the 'revolutionary' iPad won't go over like the 'revolutionary' netbook.
Right, but the terror of threatening individual citizen's lives was compounded to threatening all citizen's financial wellbeing. As far as spreading terror, disrupting the economy is alright, killing people seemingly at random is more effective, but killing people pseudo-randomly while disrupting the economy is most effective.
The other importance of the ads is that the hosts themselves use and enjoy the service. Twit especially, as Leo makes it a point to use all the products without being comped for them. He only did ads for Ford Sync after buying himself a new Mustang and using it himself. GoToMeeting and Audible are two other services he uses exclusively and raves about because he is happy with the product, and that has made them satisfied long-term sponsors of the show.
In other words, turn it from being an advertisement to an endorsement. Of course, it means your pool of advertisers is smaller (they need to make good products and the podcaster needs to use them), but 3 long-term happy sponsors is better than trying to find 3 short-term sponsors every month.
If the group appeared to be armed with AK-47s and RPGs, with one of them appearing to reach a firing position. I expect they would be glad they killed a hostile enemy, until they learned that was not the case. At that point, their coping mechanism kicks in.
Agreed. They both abstract to the same principle (a linear collection of characters), but the implementation is an important difference for anyone who plans to use one effectively. It's the same way that a binary tree, linked list, and an array are all lists, but if a programmer ignores their implementation he can be in for a world of hurt.
April fools or not, when something seems patently ridiculous, it should be one's duty to verify the claim before accepting it as fact.
Which he did, although via the roundabout method of sending troops to investigate rather than calling the station. Although, the article said communication had been cut off, so he probably expected a faster answer from the troops.
You don't see people calling air raids every time the Onion has a bowel movement.
But it happens, for people who don't have cultural experience with the Onion.
So yes, he totally got duped, but there's no sense being all high-and-mighty about it.
I don't see these price fluctuations at all. It may be that I'm smart enough to negotiate instead of just accepting the advertised price.
But unless you have a brand new ISP trying to break into the market on new infrastructure (I doubt it, though I'd like to hear if it's true) this type of thing won't happen. We're not talking about Verizon vs. Comcast, we're talking Comcast vs. NewCo (some theoretical startup).
There is always a better deal waiting for you if you're willing to walk away. Fools forget that, then bitch that they pay too much.
And this again underscores the big problem when it comes to broadband in the US. There isn't always somewhere to walk away to, because of the local monopolies. In the US we're lucky to have 3 choices for ISP (a DSL, Cable, and maybe Fiber), and each are a large company providing different levels of service. The ISPs know that it's unlikely people will leave in large numbers, because there is no better deal for similar service available to them.
In Europe and elsewhere it's common to have 5 ISPs sharing the infrastructure, meaning that it's possible to get up and walk away and have actual competition amongst the companies instead of the token competition we have now. That's why the UK pays roughly 50% the US average per MBps source.
The incumbent charges too much nearly everywhere, using it to finance predatory pricing in the area of an upstart competition until they go out of business, then returns the pricing to its former level.
Basically, any new ISP would need equally large war coffers (such as Google) to gain a foothold.
I'm under no belief that anyone, even soldiers, is immune from making mistakes. I find it harsh to judge actions made in the field by claiming that it's obvious after watching an annotated version of the video multiple times in a comfortable chair. Mistakes are going to happen, the best anyone can do is put guards up to limit them.
Also, keep in mind that nearly everyone these pilots see with a cylindrical object on their shoulder is wielding an RPG. Expectations play a big part in all this.