And surely Harlan Ellison would know that it was Robert Silverberg he was quoting about writer's block instead of Asimov, since he was good friends with both. One suspects the submitter either mis-remembers or is repeating a joke that he didn't fully understand.
It's been fashionable to smack Apple around almost since the launch of the Macintosh. When Jobs gloated that the Mac was 'hacker proof' at a press conference at the product release, a lot of us made up our minds. The FSF had a rather active anti-Apple campaign coming out of Apple's look-and-feel litigation** for many years.
Gee, when was that? The Mac was launched in 1984, and hardly anyone in the mainstream even knew what a "hacker" was -- in fact the Mac predates the FSF, which was founded in 1985. You and your putative cohorts seem to have kept your minds rigid since the mid 80s. Congratulations, I guess, at staying fashionable.
You may be focusing specifically on OS updates, but Apple's security updates usually have a itemized description of each bug, including shout-outs to the people who reported them. You can usually get to it by following links from the description in Software Update, and you could probably find it via the website if you cared to.
In general, I think we're seeing a demographic disconnect with a lot of the comments here. To use the ever-popular car analogy, the overwhelming majority of car users just want their car to be a reliable form of transportation that "just works". Same with computers. We here are from a demographic that ranges from button-pushers to tinkerers to professional mechanics who could build a car from scratch, and our concerns are different than 95% of Windows/Apple users. Technical detail is our lifeblood, that's why we come here, but we don't expect it in the mass media any more than we expect our politicians to live up to the moral values they try to impose on the rest of us.
If WPA is broken on the new Touch (and it sounds like it is), then that's one stupid effing bug. I was thinking of getting one so I could play with programming a touch/gesture interface on what appears to be a very nice portable media display, but that's a show-stopper.
I know I've got a bad habit on commenting on people's sigs, but I can't follow the last two bits of yours. If 1^2=-1^2 (which it does), wouldn't your next step be sqrt(1^2)=sqrt((-1)^2)? And how you get from 1=-1 to 1=0 seems pretty unsupportable; addition or subtraction won't work (2=0?!), and multiplication by zero would leave both sides zero. Must not be mathematics as I know it...
Oddly enough, there is a body whose job is to determine the facts on matters that are somewhat subjective, and alledged to be harmful. That body is called "a jury."
Yes, and it appears the trial is happening right here.
(For my part, I've considered both trusting and not trusting, and it seems to me that refusing to trust can have no advantage over trusting, but trusting might have some advantages.)
Game theory (using the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, natch) seems to indicate you're correct. In fact, forgiveness in addition to trust appears to be the optimum strategy, last time I read about it.
Humor is usually brief, unlike you apparently, but I'll explain and kill the joke by dissecting it at great length in an attempt to answer you in the way to which you seem to be accustomed.
You see, chickens are not known to have a writing system, and most observers, were they to see a series of scratches on the ground and a nearby chicken that could reasonably be assumed to have made such, would, I hope you'll agree, and of course you do, think it unlikely that said nearby chicken was attempting to communicate. Therefore for most values of reality it may be considered an impossibility. The jest, you see, is that by asking for a "cite", a concept usually related to ascertaining authoritative references for factual material (ie, material that represents facts), I am implying that something impossible (chicken-scratch as communication) is actually possible (could be proven by reference to other sources), even though the very idea is absurd. Ha ha ha, are you laughing now? (Google it if necessary.)
I do hope that now I have earned your respect, you mysterious person whose respect I was until recently unaware was urgently required, by acting like a pedantic, arrogant snot. Now how are you going to earn my respect (assuming you need it, and why the feck would you)?
Not true with the MacBook. Takes a coin to get the battery out, then a few screws to get to the RAM and HD. It doesn't void your warranty, Apple even gives you instructions.
Now the MacBook Pro, I hear that's quite different.
So? The question isn't whether somebody told IBM. IBM didn't care. IBM was legitimizing the market by entering into it (via the Boca Raton skunkworks), hence the ad Apple published: "Welcome IBM. Seriously."
You appear to be using a semantic argument here. For you it isn't a monopoly being "handed over" unless it comes in a big red box labeled "Monopoly" and is accompanied by dinner and a movie. (Everyone knows how that came out -- Microsoft telling IBM that it "wasn't that into" OS/2 after all and going back to its ex, Windows, hoping to be forgiven.)
IBM's entry into the PC market legitimized both the PC and Microsoft, and led to the evolution (some might say perversion) of the business market for millions of PCs. DOS' overwhelming market share (exponentiated by the rise of the clone market) was leveraged both overtly and not (reaching heights such as detecting the presence of DR-DOS and tossing up a bogus warning, and the whole STAC saga) into the basis of the Windows/WinTel monopoly. (And fwiw Kildall thought DOS was a CP/M clone.)
This doesn't de-legitimize the years of hard work by their developers, or the mix of strategy and just plain luck (they really did believe in OS/2 as the future, Windows was at that point about to starve from lack of reason to live, and NT was developed so the guy they hired away from DEC would have something to do) that got them that monopoly. It's what they did, and do, with that monopoly (and that's their legal and business departments, not the developers) that people complain about here. OOXML, anyone?
What you believe is absolutely a choise. However, at most one belief system is true. One of the chief purposes in life is to try to detrmine which one is correct. So if it turns out the B'anai B'rith are correct, everybody else goes to hell? Or if it's the Mormons, then black people have only had souls and gone to heaven for the last forty years? What if agnosticism turns out to be the winning ticket? You'd surely burn in heck with Richard Dawkins.
Your "belief system" obviously includes the belief that you are correct and everybody else is wrong (many other people have that one, go figure). But what is your belief system? Is it consistent? Do you live up to it? (If a Christian, do you not eat shellfish, feel required to marry your brother's widow, or avoid blended fabrics?) As Chesterton wrote, "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." (Hence the overlap with the feel-good New Age movement.)
Have you looked at it? No nudity anywhere on the web site or packaging. The point is to allow married couples to buy toys without any sort of nudity. The entire purpose is to increase the relationship between husbands and wives. Please explain how we are making anything worse. Erm, will they be wearing clothes while they use your toys? (Don't answer that.) Isn't mechanizing sex a perversion of marriage? Isn't there a chance that good moral Christian sexual experimentation will go too far and lead to unholy (I assume) S&M and B&D? (No jokes here about "covenants" being similar.) Once there's a vibrator in the bed ("This is the ultimate toy! It is an amazing way to give your spouse an incredible orgasm and it is a wonderful muscle massager as well. On top of all that there is nothing sexual in its appearance." - review on your site), don't you think they'll graduate to strap-ons?
Don't like it, don't shop there. Diversity if one of the great things about America, and the freedom to believe what you want, and to disagree. Oh how I wish your co-religionists believed that, instead of going around banning Harry Potter books, subverting the Constitution, attacking nonbelievers, and promoting torture.
If we disagree about religion, I may believe that you are wrong (and may even try to convince you that I am right), but I will not call you names, or interfere your right to believe what you want. All I ask is the same kindness in return. If I offered you some of the Christian kindnesses I and some of the people I know have received you would be in intensive care, if not dead. I hope that never happens to you. Yes, may you be caught up in the rapture and go to heaven and never die. (Good luck with that.)
What, do married men get their dick cut off? WTF does being married or single have to do with child abuse? Well, most child abuse is "in the family", so being married is probably a risk factor. Being a Catholic priest also seems to be one, and they're single (unless "brides of Christ" applies to priests as well as nuns).
Yes, they are exlcusionary. But, they are exclusionary on things based on choice (not things you can't change, like race). Just like a chess club might not want members who hate to play chess. Get over it. So if atheism is a choice, then isn't religion (theism) in general a choice as well? And why would someone who hates chess join a chess club? Try a car analogy, maybe you'll have better luck.
PS: Isn't your Christian porn and sex toys site (as cited in your sig) in bad and immoral taste? Studies show at least 50% of born-again Christians (in the US) have porn and sex addictions. Should you really be trying to make that worse?
that has to be taken with a "Lot's wife" sized grain of salt. ...As was my comment. (On purpose.) Everybody knows it was actually Horus, son of Isis. Or so I hear.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
And surely Harlan Ellison would know that it was Robert Silverberg he was quoting about writer's block instead of Asimov, since he was good friends with both. One suspects the submitter either mis-remembers or is repeating a joke that he didn't fully understand.
We were talking about you, not me.
Pitch perfect!
Why do you think he hates to admit it? /eliza
It's been fashionable to smack Apple around almost since the launch of the Macintosh. When Jobs gloated that the Mac was 'hacker proof' at a press conference at the product release, a lot of us made up our minds. The FSF had a rather active anti-Apple campaign coming out of Apple's look-and-feel litigation** for many years.
Gee, when was that? The Mac was launched in 1984, and hardly anyone in the mainstream even knew what a "hacker" was -- in fact the Mac predates the FSF, which was founded in 1985. You and your putative cohorts seem to have kept your minds rigid since the mid 80s. Congratulations, I guess, at staying fashionable.
as any good fan will tell you, the films are not canonical.
...Except the TV movie, the only appearance of the Eighth Doctor. He's portrayed in the notebook in Human Nature.
"Ever get the impression that maybe people are submitting this mail so they might see it appear here on Friday?"
If they are they're extraordinarily foresighted to submit to a section that's six years in their future.
You may be focusing specifically on OS updates, but Apple's security updates usually have a itemized description of each bug, including shout-outs to the people who reported them. You can usually get to it by following links from the description in Software Update, and you could probably find it via the website if you cared to.
In general, I think we're seeing a demographic disconnect with a lot of the comments here. To use the ever-popular car analogy, the overwhelming majority of car users just want their car to be a reliable form of transportation that "just works". Same with computers. We here are from a demographic that ranges from button-pushers to tinkerers to professional mechanics who could build a car from scratch, and our concerns are different than 95% of Windows/Apple users. Technical detail is our lifeblood, that's why we come here, but we don't expect it in the mass media any more than we expect our politicians to live up to the moral values they try to impose on the rest of us.
If WPA is broken on the new Touch (and it sounds like it is), then that's one stupid effing bug. I was thinking of getting one so I could play with programming a touch/gesture interface on what appears to be a very nice portable media display, but that's a show-stopper.
I know I've got a bad habit on commenting on people's sigs, but I can't follow the last two bits of yours. If 1^2=-1^2 (which it does), wouldn't your next step be sqrt(1^2)=sqrt((-1)^2)? And how you get from 1=-1 to 1=0 seems pretty unsupportable; addition or subtraction won't work (2=0?!), and multiplication by zero would leave both sides zero. Must not be mathematics as I know it...
Oddly enough, there is a body whose job is to determine the facts on matters that are somewhat subjective, and alledged to be harmful. That body is called "a jury."
Yes, and it appears the trial is happening right here.
(For my part, I've considered both trusting and not trusting, and it seems to me that refusing to trust can have no advantage over trusting, but trusting might have some advantages.)
Game theory (using the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, natch) seems to indicate you're correct. In fact, forgiveness in addition to trust appears to be the optimum strategy, last time I read about it.
No, that was a joke. Whoosh!
Humor is usually brief, unlike you apparently, but I'll explain and kill the joke by dissecting it at great length in an attempt to answer you in the way to which you seem to be accustomed.
You see, chickens are not known to have a writing system, and most observers, were they to see a series of scratches on the ground and a nearby chicken that could reasonably be assumed to have made such, would, I hope you'll agree, and of course you do, think it unlikely that said nearby chicken was attempting to communicate. Therefore for most values of reality it may be considered an impossibility. The jest, you see, is that by asking for a "cite", a concept usually related to ascertaining authoritative references for factual material (ie, material that represents facts), I am implying that something impossible (chicken-scratch as communication) is actually possible (could be proven by reference to other sources), even though the very idea is absurd. Ha ha ha, are you laughing now? (Google it if necessary.)
I do hope that now I have earned your respect, you mysterious person whose respect I was until recently unaware was urgently required, by acting like a pedantic, arrogant snot. Now how are you going to earn my respect (assuming you need it, and why the feck would you)?
FTA, it's clear that even a chicken can create good fonts.
Cite, please.
Not true with the MacBook. Takes a coin to get the battery out, then a few screws to get to the RAM and HD. It doesn't void your warranty, Apple even gives you instructions.
Now the MacBook Pro, I hear that's quite different.
Don't you need a Torx #8 to get the drive off its sled?
So? The question isn't whether somebody told IBM. IBM didn't care. IBM was legitimizing the market by entering into it (via the Boca Raton skunkworks), hence the ad Apple published: "Welcome IBM. Seriously."
Nope, they bought it after IBM made the deal with them.
You appear to be using a semantic argument here. For you it isn't a monopoly being "handed over" unless it comes in a big red box labeled "Monopoly" and is accompanied by dinner and a movie. (Everyone knows how that came out -- Microsoft telling IBM that it "wasn't that into" OS/2 after all and going back to its ex, Windows, hoping to be forgiven.)
IBM's entry into the PC market legitimized both the PC and Microsoft, and led to the evolution (some might say perversion) of the business market for millions of PCs. DOS' overwhelming market share (exponentiated by the rise of the clone market) was leveraged both overtly and not (reaching heights such as detecting the presence of DR-DOS and tossing up a bogus warning, and the whole STAC saga) into the basis of the Windows/WinTel monopoly. (And fwiw Kildall thought DOS was a CP/M clone.)
This doesn't de-legitimize the years of hard work by their developers, or the mix of strategy and just plain luck (they really did believe in OS/2 as the future, Windows was at that point about to starve from lack of reason to live, and NT was developed so the guy they hired away from DEC would have something to do) that got them that monopoly. It's what they did, and do, with that monopoly (and that's their legal and business departments, not the developers) that people complain about here. OOXML, anyone?
Your "belief system" obviously includes the belief that you are correct and everybody else is wrong (many other people have that one, go figure). But what is your belief system? Is it consistent? Do you live up to it? (If a Christian, do you not eat shellfish, feel required to marry your brother's widow, or avoid blended fabrics?) As Chesterton wrote, "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." (Hence the overlap with the feel-good New Age movement.) Have you looked at it? No nudity anywhere on the web site or packaging. The point is to allow married couples to buy toys without any sort of nudity. The entire purpose is to increase the relationship between husbands and wives. Please explain how we are making anything worse. Erm, will they be wearing clothes while they use your toys? (Don't answer that.) Isn't mechanizing sex a perversion of marriage? Isn't there a chance that good moral Christian sexual experimentation will go too far and lead to unholy (I assume) S&M and B&D? (No jokes here about "covenants" being similar.) Once there's a vibrator in the bed ("This is the ultimate toy! It is an amazing way to give your spouse an incredible orgasm and it is a wonderful muscle massager as well. On top of all that there is nothing sexual in its appearance." - review on your site), don't you think they'll graduate to strap-ons? Don't like it, don't shop there. Diversity if one of the great things about America, and the freedom to believe what you want, and to disagree. Oh how I wish your co-religionists believed that, instead of going around banning Harry Potter books, subverting the Constitution, attacking nonbelievers, and promoting torture. If we disagree about religion, I may believe that you are wrong (and may even try to convince you that I am right), but I will not call you names, or interfere your right to believe what you want. All I ask is the same kindness in return. If I offered you some of the Christian kindnesses I and some of the people I know have received you would be in intensive care, if not dead. I hope that never happens to you. Yes, may you be caught up in the rapture and go to heaven and never die. (Good luck with that.)
Glad I could help.
PS: Isn't your Christian porn and sex toys site (as cited in your sig) in bad and immoral taste? Studies show at least 50% of born-again Christians (in the US) have porn and sex addictions. Should you really be trying to make that worse?
In the absence of actual novelty, a round-up or comparison of a bunch (>5) of drives could be postworthy.
Natalie Portman is dead. Netcraft confirms it.
"Law are meant to keeps law abiding citizens abiding." v. "Laws are meant to protect corporate and government interests."
I think you're both right. Laws are meant to promote good conduct and accountability. Laws are used to protect corporate and government interests.