I think GP was only thinking of faster traffic speeds... for stop-and-go traffic alternating makes sense, but if traffic is going a bit faster it seems dangerous to wait until the last minute to merge (and of course the continuing lane slowing down becomes an issue).
They say that "one of the limitations of devices like Android and iPhone is the sampling of only two active points" but the iPhone can sample 5 points.
The iPad can actually do 11 touches. Feel free to speculate on what part is the 11th finger:)
It is a flawed product. As far as flaws go, "decreased reception only when holding the phone in a certain way that causes issues only in low signal strength areas that can be corrected by any inexpensive 3rd party case" seems overblown.
How can they recommend the older phone that has permanent, unfixable weak reception but not this one?
It seems like they are withholding the recommendation to punish Apple for insufficient disclosure, or not giving away free cases or something. Which I'm not really against, but its not about what phone would be more practical for the consumer or gives them the most value for the money. For something that you will use every day for years, the extra hassle of buying a 3rd party case and putting it on does not seem more important than all the other factors.
Just add $30 to the cost of the phone, and review it with a case on, if it is that big of a problem.
Sure Apple isn't doing the customer friendly thing by giving away free cases (go figure), but if a relatively cheap Apple or 3rd party case solves it and everything else is OK, I don't see why this is a big deal.
I've never said Hu Jintao was a great guy or that I supported the Chinese government. I am saying that democracy works here because we respect the system, and that it frequently hasn't worked in developing countries because of corruption, cheating, economic catastrophe, etc. The idea that we can solve China's problems for them by forcing them to imitate us is stupid.
Checking your comment history
The majority of my comment history is this discussion with you.
I hope you're cashing those checks.
If you can get paid for having futile debates on the internet, no one has told me.
He's not actually a dictator, the government is democratically elected, no one is accusing them of rigging votes. I should have been more clear in my response. The government has a transparent political and judicial process, and the measures of success are internationally accepted. He is the leader of the political party that has been re-elected to power for 30+ years, not unlike Japan and the LDP from 1955-1993.
And unlike our friend against the communists Taiwan, which was a real dictatorship that jailed or executed political opponents from 1948-1987.
Or South Korea, whose democratic government has been taken over by the military three times since the 1960s.
I fail to see how I am the troll here, when most of your argument consists of either personally insulting me or making outrageous comparisons to the likes slaveowners or Kim Jong Ill. Surely Godwin's law is not far off?
Yes, the dictator who rule(d) Singapore with an iron fist. Also the person who brought Singapore from an 3rd world country plagued by racial riots with little natural resources or land, to a prosperous, safe, clean country just below Germany on the HDI, in the space of 30 years.
He may not be a nice guy but Singapore's low crime, unemployment, lack of drug problems, etc is obviously no accident... Here is a tiny interview excerpt:
SPIEGEL: During your career, you have kept your distance from Western style democracy. Are you still convinced that an authoritarian system is the future for Asia?
Mr. Lee: Why should I be against democracy? The British came here, never gave me democracy, except when they were about to leave. But I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people's position. In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I'd run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them. So I found a formula that changes that...
I'm also going to quote from another slashdot poster:
China has a long history of extremely violent and bloody revolutions. The relative political stability of the past 60 years is pretty much unprecedented. If the past is any indication, the transformation to complete freedom in China is not likely to go as peacefully as it did with the Soviet Union.
Sudden change in China usually results in the deaths of millions. They have little history of peaceful change. The government has an obligation to tread cautiously.
I guess the general idea is that the effectiveness of government matters in addition to the process by which it is arrived at, and the idea that a developed country and stable democracy like the US (civil war notwithstanding) will somehow establish itself if only more freedoms are granted is likely naive.
Well, you could just ask them, if it was sufficiently anonymous. According to a poll by the University of Maryland, Hu Jintao recently had a 93% approval rating (http://www.newsweek.com/id/141764/). There's also the issue of if public support is a source of political legitimacy in the absence of free speech.
Of course, these ideas of political legitimacy were pioneered by western philosophers such as John Locke in the 17th century. There's that "cultural" thing.
Freedom is not absolute in any country. Copyrights and patents limit individual freedom. There's mandatory schooling. You can't do certain drugs, sell sex, or posses child porn. There are slander and libel laws. If you are engaged in some sort of business or trade you are absolutely not free to do as you please. You can argue that some rights are universal, but surely the extent of individual freedom is a cultural and political issue to some degree?
Also, consider for a moment that money also brings with it its own kind of freedom. The legal right to publish anti-government material on the internet is meaningless without access to both a computer and an internet connection.
Compared to the largest democracy, India, the Chinese government has been much much more effective at improving living conditions and is also less corrupt. They top officers have engineering degrees and do not have to spend their time conducting political campaigns or raising money from special interest groups. Major infrastructure projects are undertaken without endless debates. People do not have the same rights as western democracies, but there is also a benefit: China has been the fastest growing major economy for 30 years.
If the majority of the Chinese support this system of government, who are we to say that they need to sacrifice it in the name of "freedom."
What if average people, in a country that is relatively uneducated, do not know best how to govern the country?
Compare China's government to the large democracies of India and Indonesia. Is it less effective? Is it more corrupt? Look what happened to Russia after communism fell. Should the same thing happen to China?
China has, probably, the best government it has ever had. The approval rating is apparently around 90%. If it was a person, they would be re-elected.
Just because in the U.S. our democratic system produces leaders who we think are capable and who govern responsibly, does not automatically mean that in a 3rd world country the same result would occur. We don't have to worry about the stability of our government or (for the most part) people questioning its legitimacy, but are developing countries the same? Is having some web sites censored too large a price to pay for more peaceful economic development and less political fighting? Is porn included in free speech?
I don't have an answer to these questions myself, but it seems like it isn't completely a one-sided issue.
It's a shame they can't hang in there though. The censorship situation might be different in 10 or 20 years, but winning back substantial market share after everyone uses Baidu might be impossible.
If they can't get the government to stop censorship, what is the point of Google pulling out of China? It looks like the result of Google's actions will be:
- there is less search engine choice in China
- (presumably) some people from Google China will lose their jobs
It would be completely different if Google was so important that they could force the Chinese government to do what they want. But they are not even the biggest search engine in China. Why is everyone acting like Google is doing the right thing, when it seems like what they are doing will be bad for everyone involved (the employees, users, and shareholders)?
If you have a Gmail account they do this, but it also seems like they do it to random users too (maybe they use the information to improve search results).
Check out the comments here:
http://mboffin.com/post.aspx?id=1830
Slashdot Mirror
I think GP was only thinking of faster traffic speeds... for stop-and-go traffic alternating makes sense, but if traffic is going a bit faster it seems dangerous to wait until the last minute to merge (and of course the continuing lane slowing down becomes an issue).
They say that "one of the limitations of devices like Android and iPhone is the sampling of only two active points" but the iPhone can sample 5 points.
:)
The iPad can actually do 11 touches. Feel free to speculate on what part is the 11th finger
It is a flawed product. As far as flaws go, "decreased reception only when holding the phone in a certain way that causes issues only in low signal strength areas that can be corrected by any inexpensive 3rd party case" seems overblown.
How can they recommend the older phone that has permanent, unfixable weak reception but not this one?
It seems like they are withholding the recommendation to punish Apple for insufficient disclosure, or not giving away free cases or something. Which I'm not really against, but its not about what phone would be more practical for the consumer or gives them the most value for the money. For something that you will use every day for years, the extra hassle of buying a 3rd party case and putting it on does not seem more important than all the other factors.
If I know in advance that I need to buy a case, but I decide that I still want an iPhone at $230, I won't be pissed.
If I buy an iPhone and discover later that I need to shill out another $30 because it won't work right without a case, of course I'll be pissed.
Just add $30 to the cost of the phone, and review it with a case on, if it is that big of a problem.
Sure Apple isn't doing the customer friendly thing by giving away free cases (go figure), but if a relatively cheap Apple or 3rd party case solves it and everything else is OK, I don't see why this is a big deal.
Even cheaper from Netgear ($150 in cart, it was the first item in the router section):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833122326
It has "simultaneous dual band", USB support, etc. I don't see what the problem is.
how do you get a C++ compiler working on a platform that doesn't have one
Why not bootstrap using a cross compiler?
Checking your comment history
The majority of my comment history is this discussion with you.
I hope you're cashing those checks.
If you can get paid for having futile debates on the internet, no one has told me.
He's not actually a dictator, the government is democratically elected, no one is accusing them of rigging votes. I should have been more clear in my response. The government has a transparent political and judicial process, and the measures of success are internationally accepted. He is the leader of the political party that has been re-elected to power for 30+ years, not unlike Japan and the LDP from 1955-1993.
And unlike our friend against the communists Taiwan, which was a real dictatorship that jailed or executed political opponents from 1948-1987.
Or South Korea, whose democratic government has been taken over by the military three times since the 1960s.
I fail to see how I am the troll here, when most of your argument consists of either personally insulting me or making outrageous comparisons to the likes slaveowners or Kim Jong Ill. Surely Godwin's law is not far off?
He may not be a nice guy but Singapore's low crime, unemployment, lack of drug problems, etc is obviously no accident... Here is a tiny interview excerpt:
SPIEGEL: During your career, you have kept your distance from Western style democracy. Are you still convinced that an authoritarian system is the future for Asia?
Mr. Lee: Why should I be against democracy? The British came here, never gave me democracy, except when they were about to leave. But I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people's position. In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I'd run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them. So I found a formula that changes that...
I'm also going to quote from another slashdot poster:
China has a long history of extremely violent and bloody revolutions. The relative political stability of the past 60 years is pretty much unprecedented. If the past is any indication, the transformation to complete freedom in China is not likely to go as peacefully as it did with the Soviet Union.
Sudden change in China usually results in the deaths of millions. They have little history of peaceful change. The government has an obligation to tread cautiously.
I guess the general idea is that the effectiveness of government matters in addition to the process by which it is arrived at, and the idea that a developed country and stable democracy like the US (civil war notwithstanding) will somehow establish itself if only more freedoms are granted is likely naive.
And how are we to know that?
Well, you could just ask them, if it was sufficiently anonymous. According to a poll by the University of Maryland, Hu Jintao recently had a 93% approval rating (http://www.newsweek.com/id/141764/). There's also the issue of if public support is a source of political legitimacy in the absence of free speech.
Of course, these ideas of political legitimacy were pioneered by western philosophers such as John Locke in the 17th century. There's that "cultural" thing.
An interesting read that touches on these issues is this interview of Lee Kuan Yew, the prime minister of Singapore for 30 years.
Freedom and liberty are not "cultural" issues.
Freedom is not absolute in any country. Copyrights and patents limit individual freedom. There's mandatory schooling. You can't do certain drugs, sell sex, or posses child porn. There are slander and libel laws. If you are engaged in some sort of business or trade you are absolutely not free to do as you please. You can argue that some rights are universal, but surely the extent of individual freedom is a cultural and political issue to some degree?
Also, consider for a moment that money also brings with it its own kind of freedom. The legal right to publish anti-government material on the internet is meaningless without access to both a computer and an internet connection.
Compared to the largest democracy, India, the Chinese government has been much much more effective at improving living conditions and is also less corrupt. They top officers have engineering degrees and do not have to spend their time conducting political campaigns or raising money from special interest groups. Major infrastructure projects are undertaken without endless debates. People do not have the same rights as western democracies, but there is also a benefit: China has been the fastest growing major economy for 30 years.
If the majority of the Chinese support this system of government, who are we to say that they need to sacrifice it in the name of "freedom."
I'm going to play the devil's advocate here.
What if average people, in a country that is relatively uneducated, do not know best how to govern the country?
Compare China's government to the large democracies of India and Indonesia. Is it less effective? Is it more corrupt? Look what happened to Russia after communism fell. Should the same thing happen to China?
China has, probably, the best government it has ever had. The approval rating is apparently around 90%. If it was a person, they would be re-elected.
Just because in the U.S. our democratic system produces leaders who we think are capable and who govern responsibly, does not automatically mean that in a 3rd world country the same result would occur. We don't have to worry about the stability of our government or (for the most part) people questioning its legitimacy, but are developing countries the same? Is having some web sites censored too large a price to pay for more peaceful economic development and less political fighting? Is porn included in free speech?
I don't have an answer to these questions myself, but it seems like it isn't completely a one-sided issue.
It's a shame they can't hang in there though. The censorship situation might be different in 10 or 20 years, but winning back substantial market share after everyone uses Baidu might be impossible.
I don't support censorship, but if Google leaves China's internet will still be censored, only by Baidu instead of Google.
If they can't get the government to stop censorship, what is the point of Google pulling out of China? It looks like the result of Google's actions will be:
- there is less search engine choice in China
- (presumably) some people from Google China will lose their jobs
It would be completely different if Google was so important that they could force the Chinese government to do what they want. But they are not even the biggest search engine in China. Why is everyone acting like Google is doing the right thing, when it seems like what they are doing will be bad for everyone involved (the employees, users, and shareholders)?
If you have a Gmail account they do this, but it also seems like they do it to random users too (maybe they use the information to improve search results).
Check out the comments here: http://mboffin.com/post.aspx?id=1830