12 million light years from here, I suspect you would not find a gas bubble shooting out of a black hole, because if we're detecting it now, it means it happened 12 million years ago, and if you were 12 million years away from here at that black hole, the gas bubble would have long since been shot out.
...there isn't any way for regimes to block access to specific websites.
And um... North Korea? I'm sure there's a 386 or two floating around there (not including the ones that power their nuke facilities) but how many North Korean dissidents do you suppose have access to the internet? They'll need to focus more on cell phone and sneaker net communications (smuggled across the Chinese border) if they want to reach them.
Of all the things I own that are quite pleasing, all of them have minor flaws
There are a couple of logical problems with this counter example of yours.
First of all, just because everything that is pleasing to you has a minor flaw does not mean that everything with a minor flaw is pleasing (fallacy of the undistributed middle, I believe).
Granted, that at the same time, not everything that has a minor flaw is "not pleasing". However, that leads me to your second fallacy. You are conflating being pleased with the device overall with being pleased with the App Store approval policy. The article clearly states that the iPad has high approval ratings overall, and restates this specifically in the part dealing with the App Store policy.
Again, you can make a case that "it's a minor problem" does not necessarily equate to unhappiness. However, it's a case that relies on conjecture, because their survey question didn't ask how happy people were. We're not going to get any further than an argument over semantics.
To simply state that the article was wrong is not fair. They were providing what I think is a reasonable (but debatable) interpretation of the survey results. They used inexact language with which you (and apparently BearRanger) disagree. Okay, you're entitled to disagree.
However, the original respondent said the Slashdot summary is wrong. Assuming we can treat "happy with" as equivalent to "pleased with", the Slashdot summary accurately reflects what the authors of the article state.
More importantly, the original respondent did not question if users were pleased or happy with the App Store policies, he (or she) questioned whether non-developer users care. Technically we can't tell from the survey, because they don't break down those numbers between developers and non-developers, but if we assume that developers made up a small percentage of respondents (fair assumption? I don't know), then it would appear he was incorrect- a majority of users care enough to consider it at least a minor problem.
Yes, a majority of the respondents had a "problem", but that's not what the article or the summary says. It says something along the lines that the majority of customers are "unhappy campers". Finding minor problems with a policy does not fit in the "pissed off" category.
No, the article says (again):
In only one major area did unhappy campers dominate: A majority aren’t pleased with Apple’s App Store approval process.
The summary says:
In only one major area did unhappy campers dominate: A majority aren’t pleased with Apple’s App Store approval process.
(Note: you don't have to rely on "something along the lines" when the actual text of the summary is readily available to you.)
I'm willing to concede that the label "unhappy campers" is a bit much here. But the operative part of that quote is the latter part: "A majority aren’t pleased with Apple’s App Store approval process." At any rate, nowhere in either the article or the summary does it say that a majority of customers are "unhappy campers", the summary specifically mentions that it's just in one area. Whether that area is "major" or not is a subjective call, and doesn't appear to be something asked in the survey.
Besides, the survey is using a simple Likert-scale to gather quantifiable metrics. The top two (none at all, and minor) or more closely related for discussion purposes than the bottom two are.
It's your conjecture that "minor" is closer to "none at all" than to "major". I think that's debatable, and is pretty poor support that the summary was flat-out wrong, as you originally stated.
Now you're just parsing words to support your interpretation. A majority of respondents had a problem with the App Store policies, whether major, minor or unacceptable.
You suggested that most end users don't care about App Store policies (because we don't care what apps we have access to?). Whether "minor issue" is equivalent to "unhappy" is debatable; but it certainly doesn't mean "don't care".
Actually, if you look at the article, you'd see that the Slashdot summary correctly reflects what the article says:
In only one major area did unhappy campers dominate: A majority aren’t pleased with Apple’s App Store approval process.
I haven't developed any iPad/iPhone apps, or know anyone who has, but I'm not pleased with their approval process because I actually read and am aware of some of the gaffes they've made with it (Mark Fiore's app, Ulysses Seen, Tom Bouden's version of The Importance of Being Earnest, etc.).
The ruling effectively says that Congress can violate the First Amendment, so long as it feels it has heard from enough people
Based on the reader's own comments earlier, didn't the ruling effectively say that it's not a violation of the First Amendment?
You can disagree with that decision, but don't mischaracterize what the court's ruling says, especially if that's going to contradict your own account.
Okay, that's a technicality, but if you mean the 8"x4.2" Archos, I don't think that's exactly equivalent to the 9"x7.5" iPad. Not equivalent enough to suggest that "anyone with half a brain" would have one.
As for those models that are "slated to come out this year"... well, you can't very well have one yet, right?
It's good to know that science has our best interests at heart. Who needs cancer cures or alternative energy, when there's steak with which for us to fill our fattened gullets?
Slashdot Mirror
Compared to those photos, I find your unsourced blog comments to be much more compelling evidence.
I don't know about Wang Chen, but I've heard that everybody will Wang Chung tonight.
Porn
Yet those bastards couldn't beat Germany, and now I've got to watch Spain in the finals.
12 million light years from here, I suspect you would not find a gas bubble shooting out of a black hole, because if we're detecting it now, it means it happened 12 million years ago, and if you were 12 million years away from here at that black hole, the gas bubble would have long since been shot out.
...there isn't any way for regimes to block access to specific websites.
And um... North Korea? I'm sure there's a 386 or two floating around there (not including the ones that power their nuke facilities) but how many North Korean dissidents do you suppose have access to the internet? They'll need to focus more on cell phone and sneaker net communications (smuggled across the Chinese border) if they want to reach them.
Except in this case, it was apparently in violation of the law.
If only there were some sort of optical technology that would allow photographers to "zoom" in on things 65 feet away. Some sort of "telephoto" thing.
Y so srs?
Did I say ice hockey in my post? No? Then why'd you assume that I only meant ice hockey? Maybe I meant roller hockey.
Isn't the bigger insult to call the queen the Pakistani hockey team?
Who's the saddo now?
Oh, and Pakistan has a hockey team?
Are you sure you're not thinking of Computashave?
Of all the things I own that are quite pleasing, all of them have minor flaws
There are a couple of logical problems with this counter example of yours.
First of all, just because everything that is pleasing to you has a minor flaw does not mean that everything with a minor flaw is pleasing (fallacy of the undistributed middle, I believe).
Granted, that at the same time, not everything that has a minor flaw is "not pleasing". However, that leads me to your second fallacy. You are conflating being pleased with the device overall with being pleased with the App Store approval policy. The article clearly states that the iPad has high approval ratings overall, and restates this specifically in the part dealing with the App Store policy.
Again, you can make a case that "it's a minor problem" does not necessarily equate to unhappiness. However, it's a case that relies on conjecture, because their survey question didn't ask how happy people were. We're not going to get any further than an argument over semantics.
To simply state that the article was wrong is not fair. They were providing what I think is a reasonable (but debatable) interpretation of the survey results. They used inexact language with which you (and apparently BearRanger) disagree. Okay, you're entitled to disagree.
However, the original respondent said the Slashdot summary is wrong. Assuming we can treat "happy with" as equivalent to "pleased with", the Slashdot summary accurately reflects what the authors of the article state.
More importantly, the original respondent did not question if users were pleased or happy with the App Store policies, he (or she) questioned whether non-developer users care. Technically we can't tell from the survey, because they don't break down those numbers between developers and non-developers, but if we assume that developers made up a small percentage of respondents (fair assumption? I don't know), then it would appear he was incorrect- a majority of users care enough to consider it at least a minor problem.
Yes, a majority of the respondents had a "problem", but that's not what the article or the summary says. It says something along the lines that the majority of customers are "unhappy campers". Finding minor problems with a policy does not fit in the "pissed off" category.
No, the article says (again):
The summary says:
(Note: you don't have to rely on "something along the lines" when the actual text of the summary is readily available to you.)
I'm willing to concede that the label "unhappy campers" is a bit much here. But the operative part of that quote is the latter part: "A majority aren’t pleased with Apple’s App Store approval process." At any rate, nowhere in either the article or the summary does it say that a majority of customers are "unhappy campers", the summary specifically mentions that it's just in one area. Whether that area is "major" or not is a subjective call, and doesn't appear to be something asked in the survey.
Besides, the survey is using a simple Likert-scale to gather quantifiable metrics. The top two (none at all, and minor) or more closely related for discussion purposes than the bottom two are.
It's your conjecture that "minor" is closer to "none at all" than to "major". I think that's debatable, and is pretty poor support that the summary was flat-out wrong, as you originally stated.
Yeah, if only there were some sort of federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act that could protect us breeders from discrimination like this.
It is unfair. For this reason, unmarried hetero partners should get out there and support gay marriage.
With Republicans these days, it's always difficult to tell who is kidding and who isn't.
Now you're just parsing words to support your interpretation. A majority of respondents had a problem with the App Store policies, whether major, minor or unacceptable.
You suggested that most end users don't care about App Store policies (because we don't care what apps we have access to?). Whether "minor issue" is equivalent to "unhappy" is debatable; but it certainly doesn't mean "don't care".
Actually, if you look at the article, you'd see that the Slashdot summary correctly reflects what the article says:
I haven't developed any iPad/iPhone apps, or know anyone who has, but I'm not pleased with their approval process because I actually read and am aware of some of the gaffes they've made with it (Mark Fiore's app, Ulysses Seen, Tom Bouden's version of The Importance of Being Earnest, etc.).
Based on the reader's own comments earlier, didn't the ruling effectively say that it's not a violation of the First Amendment?
You can disagree with that decision, but don't mischaracterize what the court's ruling says, especially if that's going to contradict your own account.
For grade schools, perhaps they should just take to supervising how their students are using their resources the old-fashioned way: watch over them.
And you can still monitor where users are going, just not what search results they see. Big honkin' deal.
Will it then also recognize and block dickheads?
What could possibly go wrong? *cough* Long Term Capital Management *cough*
Archos makes a Droid?
Okay, that's a technicality, but if you mean the 8"x4.2" Archos, I don't think that's exactly equivalent to the 9"x7.5" iPad. Not equivalent enough to suggest that "anyone with half a brain" would have one.
As for those models that are "slated to come out this year"... well, you can't very well have one yet, right?
How is that new droid tablet? Oh, they don't have one yet?
Check the fanboyism at the door please.
It's good to know that science has our best interests at heart. Who needs cancer cures or alternative energy, when there's steak with which for us to fill our fattened gullets?