This is truth. You have portions of the population who are interested and then those who aren't. I don't think people hate it, but they rightfully know that is not for them, and that is true for a desktop environment. The problem is most people don't understand what embedded means and so mentioning linux can scare people out of even looking at the product because they think it must just be something they are incapable of operating. I am willing to bet most westerners have interacted with a linux machine at some point in their life, most without knowing it. Embedded linux is everywhere but no one needs or wants to know it.
Although you think this is a great example, most aftermarket parts put on a car voids the very important warranty unless it is all authorized dealer parts and service. So in reality it is the same business model. Its a sort of quality control, protecting the user from possible bad experiences so that the company's name doesn't get tarnished. The majority like that the company is protecting them. Everyone else doesn't get it, they think that just because we have a free market that means that a company has to make their products open to tinker with and if they don't it's some crime. If you don't like the product, don't buy it, but don't be a hypocrite and buy the thing and then bitch because you THINK it should do more. Apple is open about rejecting apps, they aren't trying to trick devs/customers into thinking they can get any app accepted.
Why isn't anyone bitching at Microsoft for not letting any 3rd party apps on the Zune HD? Because no one even wants the device? There are countless examples of less open systems than Apples, get over it.
That explains why he was dumb enough to try and stop people from criticizing him. Every politician is well trained in letting people bash them to death because they know calling them out is worse because they are smart enough to realize the contradiction. How can you be a police officer, where your sole purpose is to protect citizens rights, and try to take away one of the most fundamental rights we have. Despite politicians being evil, they are at least smart enough to not try and do this in the open. They hide it in massive bills so by the time anyone reads it they are long gone but the effects are stuck.
No, a speed trap is where a officer sits at a change in speed limit in order to enforce the change in speed limit. It is often viewed as a way to trap people unfamiliar with an area who don't see the sign of the lower speed limit. Often regarded as bullshit Most often speed traps are used in smaller towns as a source of outside revenue.
It seems big cities have tried to hijack the definition to include a bunch of other bullshit but the real definition is nabbing people at a change of speed limit that is large, unwarranted, or easy to miss. Anything else is not a trap, it is just plain speeding.
Yeah. They are dictionaries and grammar books of a given time. Just like you need to know the type of data you are importing and converting in a computer system, you need to know the type of data that you are working with in a changed language.
The only difference is that a system like a computer doesn't complain about converting tons of information like a human might... then again you could write a program to convert the language.
So tell me exactly how this is different. Both have systems of writing to convey meaning. Both systems have changes made to them from time to time. Both systems need a method of converting information back and forth between a legacy system and a modern one. You can't just inherently convert data from one system to another... you need a conversion system. The meaning is lost unless you translate it.
If these companies want the information they should have to pay for it and it should not be forced upon people to pass a middle school gym class. I see your point, but where does it stop. Should a person have to file a notice every time one takes a step, at that persons expense, just so that insurance companies have perfect information? Information also costs money and a free market will determine if that information is worth the money. Government imposed collection of this information, which is the assumption here, does not leave it up to the free market. If an insurance company finds a reliable way to adjust rates based off of information collected using these they might implement it, but only if it saves more money than it costs.
I don't think this contradicts what libertarians are about (and I am not one). It is clear that the more obvious solution to the problem you propose is that the insurance companies would offer discounts if you prove you are healthy with these devices rather than using these devices to prove you are unhealthy. And that is if insurance companies even find the information useful.
Sorry to bust your libertarian bashing bubble but I really don't see how a libertarian being outraged at this would contradict anything.
It was a question. That implies he didn't know the answer.
And, again, again. My OP was in no way related to the feasibility of having internet in the wilderness. It was merely addressing the constant posts saying that if he is out in the wilderness he doesn't need internet and shouldn't want it either. Those posts have nothing to do with feasibility.
I am talking about the idea of being outdoors, and the idea of using the internet not being exclusive.
The comments that say "you are Rving you should be enjoying the outdoors not on the internet" are the ones I am addressing. Just because places exist where you don't get internet does not mean there aren't plenty of places you can get it.
Half the comments have some portion dedicated to criticizing the idea of RVing and "being connected'. Why is it so hard to understand that liking the outdoors/road and having internet are not opposites. Everyone that is asking why he even needs internet should ask themselves why they want phone service when not at home. The internet is just as much a tool as a frying pan or a tent these days, and having access to it at all times is very useful. Not to mention that one could spend all day hiking around and doing activities outside only to retreat back to camp and want an hour or two of connectivity. Not totally insane if you ask me. As for how to do it? Well I am not an expert in that area so I will let someone else help out.
Or they are going to bring the tech to all worlds. The problem with your method is not that it doesn't work, but that it takes effort. People are lazy and want it done for them, and I don't see in this case why software shouldn't do the task for them. Switching from windows isn't always viable or smart in all cases.
Online I just read headlines then decide if I want to go further, but some people may not like that method and may want to see pictures/more of the article like a real newspaper.
I personally may not use this product/service but I can see how it would be useful.
True. Those people don't look at education as a trade off or investment. They probably don't realize that education is an investment. One where you give up money/time now in hopes for more money/time later.
I would disagree with your analysis in some points though. I think athletes don't get attacked as much because more people can relate to the work involved to be a professional. Lots of kids played sports and know how hard it would be to play professional sports.
On the other hand, only a tiny portion of the population has ever been making the kind of money that sports stars make while not being a sports star or famous. In other words if the actual work the people are doing isn't highly visible then they get attacked for the money they make.
No one realizes that these executives that are "overpaid" work insane hours and are on call 24/7/365 if shit hits the fan. Nor do they realize the work these individuals had to do to even get to the point of becoming an executives. Nor do they realize the pressure and importance of decisions made. Decisions an executives makes can bankrupt a company that employs large chunks of cities. Yet somehow the 'average joe' thinks they should make only slightly more than average. I am sorry but some CEO's make less than sports stars and it is disgusting that people that make a real impact on the products and services that people need in their everyday lives are criticized more for their pay than spots stars. The worst that can happen if a sports star fucks up is losing a game. A CEO making less than some sports stars could destroy a towns economy and put hundreds/thousands out of work.
So I believe it is people, being social creatures, relating to sports stars and being amazed at what they can do. The average executive on the other hand is so busy that even trying to document their working lives would result in more material than one could even read yet people assume they are fat cats doing nothing because they can't relate.
Although I agree with the idea that you are conveying, I think it is less about people thinking what smart people do as impossible and more about people thinking it's easy. That they could do it if the fat cats at the gate would just let them. Sports on the other hand, people know they can't do it and it's easy to prove with little risk. To prove you are a good high level employee requires a company to take a risk. To prove you are a good athlete you can grab some friends and play a game. People have been allowed to fail their whole lives at sports, they know they suck. Most people have never been given the chance to bankrupt a company so they still think they can run one.
You are 100% correct. I live a 'normal' life but I find science, math, computers, etc interesting. I study how things work and why in my spare time and I have found out a lot about how the world works because of it. Some of my peers would point and laugh if I told them I spent an hour reading up on something science related when they used that time to follow a reality TV show.
The real enemy here is not a political party. It is our society and culture that ridicules knowledge and science that is the problem. When it is more socially acceptable to watch reality TV than it is to learn useful skills then you know society is going in the wrong direction. I can't believe anyone would be so ignorant as to think that republicans are the enemy here. Clearly Democrats play an equal role at sabotaging progress by succumbing to the masses (reality TV watchers) pleas for handouts. Our education system is fine, our society is so fucked up it it is better socially to be the average kid that gets C's/B's then it is to be the smart kid with A's/B's. Kids intentionally mess up at school at a young age just to be part of that cool crowd. Then those of us that learn and go on to be successful get attacked for making too much money. Fuck that.
I don't think anything will change. We will probably throw more money at education and wonder why that doesn't fix it. Just like we are about to throw more money at health care and wonder why that isn't going to solve all the problems. Our society accepts fat and dumb people and only people can change that, not money.
Sorry if I offend anyone by using the reality TV show example, but it seems they are the perfect example of a waste of time and effort that also brainwashes kids into thinking life is all about relationships/relationship drama. There are functional people that watch these shows, but for the most part the shows are representative of people that haven't made their own life a top priority.
As someone else pointed out; the OP is not even describing city-wide wifi. My city has city-wide wifi but I don't use it. I could connect to it anywhere in the city with one login if I paid the monthly fee.
No. This is game theory. I also hate to tell you this, but everyone who pulled out won the game. It is true that a group of rational actors can cause an issue exactly like we had. Note I am not saying the financial instruments are priced rationally, only that their price movement is rational for individuals.
The financial situation we are in is much like the prisoners dilemma.
Sorry to break it to you but game theory predicts this type of behavior mathematically and it is 100% rational.
Slashdot Mirror
This is truth. You have portions of the population who are interested and then those who aren't. I don't think people hate it, but they rightfully know that is not for them, and that is true for a desktop environment. The problem is most people don't understand what embedded means and so mentioning linux can scare people out of even looking at the product because they think it must just be something they are incapable of operating. I am willing to bet most westerners have interacted with a linux machine at some point in their life, most without knowing it. Embedded linux is everywhere but no one needs or wants to know it.
If the company has legal entities in a country I am sure they will be subject to those laws.
It proves you can be a manager :)
Although you think this is a great example, most aftermarket parts put on a car voids the very important warranty unless it is all authorized dealer parts and service. So in reality it is the same business model. Its a sort of quality control, protecting the user from possible bad experiences so that the company's name doesn't get tarnished. The majority like that the company is protecting them. Everyone else doesn't get it, they think that just because we have a free market that means that a company has to make their products open to tinker with and if they don't it's some crime. If you don't like the product, don't buy it, but don't be a hypocrite and buy the thing and then bitch because you THINK it should do more. Apple is open about rejecting apps, they aren't trying to trick devs/customers into thinking they can get any app accepted.
Why isn't anyone bitching at Microsoft for not letting any 3rd party apps on the Zune HD? Because no one even wants the device? There are countless examples of less open systems than Apples, get over it.
Pocket veto.
That is not a functional definition of the phrase. Sorry. California is not the rest of the world.
That explains why he was dumb enough to try and stop people from criticizing him. Every politician is well trained in letting people bash them to death because they know calling them out is worse because they are smart enough to realize the contradiction. How can you be a police officer, where your sole purpose is to protect citizens rights, and try to take away one of the most fundamental rights we have. Despite politicians being evil, they are at least smart enough to not try and do this in the open. They hide it in massive bills so by the time anyone reads it they are long gone but the effects are stuck.
No, a speed trap is where a officer sits at a change in speed limit in order to enforce the change in speed limit. It is often viewed as a way to trap people unfamiliar with an area who don't see the sign of the lower speed limit. Often regarded as bullshit Most often speed traps are used in smaller towns as a source of outside revenue.
It seems big cities have tried to hijack the definition to include a bunch of other bullshit but the real definition is nabbing people at a change of speed limit that is large, unwarranted, or easy to miss. Anything else is not a trap, it is just plain speeding.
did my mod wrong oops
Yeah. They are dictionaries and grammar books of a given time. Just like you need to know the type of data you are importing and converting in a computer system, you need to know the type of data that you are working with in a changed language.
The only difference is that a system like a computer doesn't complain about converting tons of information like a human might... then again you could write a program to convert the language.
So tell me exactly how this is different. Both have systems of writing to convey meaning. Both systems have changes made to them from time to time. Both systems need a method of converting information back and forth between a legacy system and a modern one. You can't just inherently convert data from one system to another... you need a conversion system. The meaning is lost unless you translate it.
So we should stick to the same file systems, operating systems and programs forever to preserve their usefulness?
If these companies want the information they should have to pay for it and it should not be forced upon people to pass a middle school gym class. I see your point, but where does it stop. Should a person have to file a notice every time one takes a step, at that persons expense, just so that insurance companies have perfect information? Information also costs money and a free market will determine if that information is worth the money. Government imposed collection of this information, which is the assumption here, does not leave it up to the free market. If an insurance company finds a reliable way to adjust rates based off of information collected using these they might implement it, but only if it saves more money than it costs.
I don't think this contradicts what libertarians are about (and I am not one). It is clear that the more obvious solution to the problem you propose is that the insurance companies would offer discounts if you prove you are healthy with these devices rather than using these devices to prove you are unhealthy. And that is if insurance companies even find the information useful.
Sorry to bust your libertarian bashing bubble but I really don't see how a libertarian being outraged at this would contradict anything.
It was a question. That implies he didn't know the answer.
And, again, again. My OP was in no way related to the feasibility of having internet in the wilderness. It was merely addressing the constant posts saying that if he is out in the wilderness he doesn't need internet and shouldn't want it either. Those posts have nothing to do with feasibility.
I am talking about the idea of being outdoors, and the idea of using the internet not being exclusive.
The comments that say "you are Rving you should be enjoying the outdoors not on the internet" are the ones I am addressing. Just because places exist where you don't get internet does not mean there aren't plenty of places you can get it.
I was not saying it is doable I am saying that it makes sense he wants it.
Many are saying because he is RVing he shouldn't want to use the internet and that is just plain dumb logic.
My point wasn't that he should be able to do it. The point was that it was a good question.
Half the comments have some portion dedicated to criticizing the idea of RVing and "being connected'. Why is it so hard to understand that liking the outdoors/road and having internet are not opposites. Everyone that is asking why he even needs internet should ask themselves why they want phone service when not at home. The internet is just as much a tool as a frying pan or a tent these days, and having access to it at all times is very useful. Not to mention that one could spend all day hiking around and doing activities outside only to retreat back to camp and want an hour or two of connectivity. Not totally insane if you ask me. As for how to do it? Well I am not an expert in that area so I will let someone else help out.
I see what you did there.
That was my point.
Or they are going to bring the tech to all worlds. The problem with your method is not that it doesn't work, but that it takes effort. People are lazy and want it done for them, and I don't see in this case why software shouldn't do the task for them. Switching from windows isn't always viable or smart in all cases.
Online I just read headlines then decide if I want to go further, but some people may not like that method and may want to see pictures/more of the article like a real newspaper.
I personally may not use this product/service but I can see how it would be useful.
True. Those people don't look at education as a trade off or investment. They probably don't realize that education is an investment. One where you give up money/time now in hopes for more money/time later.
I would disagree with your analysis in some points though. I think athletes don't get attacked as much because more people can relate to the work involved to be a professional. Lots of kids played sports and know how hard it would be to play professional sports.
On the other hand, only a tiny portion of the population has ever been making the kind of money that sports stars make while not being a sports star or famous. In other words if the actual work the people are doing isn't highly visible then they get attacked for the money they make.
No one realizes that these executives that are "overpaid" work insane hours and are on call 24/7/365 if shit hits the fan. Nor do they realize the work these individuals had to do to even get to the point of becoming an executives. Nor do they realize the pressure and importance of decisions made. Decisions an executives makes can bankrupt a company that employs large chunks of cities. Yet somehow the 'average joe' thinks they should make only slightly more than average. I am sorry but some CEO's make less than sports stars and it is disgusting that people that make a real impact on the products and services that people need in their everyday lives are criticized more for their pay than spots stars. The worst that can happen if a sports star fucks up is losing a game. A CEO making less than some sports stars could destroy a towns economy and put hundreds/thousands out of work.
So I believe it is people, being social creatures, relating to sports stars and being amazed at what they can do. The average executive on the other hand is so busy that even trying to document their working lives would result in more material than one could even read yet people assume they are fat cats doing nothing because they can't relate.
Although I agree with the idea that you are conveying, I think it is less about people thinking what smart people do as impossible and more about people thinking it's easy. That they could do it if the fat cats at the gate would just let them. Sports on the other hand, people know they can't do it and it's easy to prove with little risk. To prove you are a good high level employee requires a company to take a risk. To prove you are a good athlete you can grab some friends and play a game. People have been allowed to fail their whole lives at sports, they know they suck. Most people have never been given the chance to bankrupt a company so they still think they can run one.
You are 100% correct. I live a 'normal' life but I find science, math, computers, etc interesting. I study how things work and why in my spare time and I have found out a lot about how the world works because of it. Some of my peers would point and laugh if I told them I spent an hour reading up on something science related when they used that time to follow a reality TV show. The real enemy here is not a political party. It is our society and culture that ridicules knowledge and science that is the problem. When it is more socially acceptable to watch reality TV than it is to learn useful skills then you know society is going in the wrong direction. I can't believe anyone would be so ignorant as to think that republicans are the enemy here. Clearly Democrats play an equal role at sabotaging progress by succumbing to the masses (reality TV watchers) pleas for handouts. Our education system is fine, our society is so fucked up it it is better socially to be the average kid that gets C's/B's then it is to be the smart kid with A's/B's. Kids intentionally mess up at school at a young age just to be part of that cool crowd. Then those of us that learn and go on to be successful get attacked for making too much money. Fuck that. I don't think anything will change. We will probably throw more money at education and wonder why that doesn't fix it. Just like we are about to throw more money at health care and wonder why that isn't going to solve all the problems. Our society accepts fat and dumb people and only people can change that, not money. Sorry if I offend anyone by using the reality TV show example, but it seems they are the perfect example of a waste of time and effort that also brainwashes kids into thinking life is all about relationships/relationship drama. There are functional people that watch these shows, but for the most part the shows are representative of people that haven't made their own life a top priority.
read the summary much? "One of the most unexpected findings was that gameplay was not featured as one of the most important categories to fulfill,"
As someone else pointed out; the OP is not even describing city-wide wifi. My city has city-wide wifi but I don't use it. I could connect to it anywhere in the city with one login if I paid the monthly fee.
No. This is game theory. I also hate to tell you this, but everyone who pulled out won the game. It is true that a group of rational actors can cause an issue exactly like we had. Note I am not saying the financial instruments are priced rationally, only that their price movement is rational for individuals.
The financial situation we are in is much like the prisoners dilemma.
Sorry to break it to you but game theory predicts this type of behavior mathematically and it is 100% rational.
OK. Why hasn't Apple told anyone?