I don't know guys, these is coming from FOX news. Reminds me of the kind of "the universe isn't really 18 billion years old, more like 5000" or "the earth is really 4 billion years old, its more like 5000" or "the universe isn't THAT big, its really only us in the center with a bunch of crystal spheres" or "the earth isn't that big, if you try to sail around it, you will just fall off the edge" or...
Maybe FOX got it from a real news source, but I don't trust FOX.
What happened on May 6th happened in Idiocracy, except worse.
Having something in place to say STOP TRADING when shit goes to hell, like the day the great depression started, the bubble burst, or the housing market crashed. It gives us a chance to stop something terrible in its tracks. The markets will find ways to try to trade down and up things very rapidly unless there is a block. This is a decent sounding block for now. I do agree with the afterposter, that millisecond trading should be banned. It is another way that we can draw profit from real markets, and remove money from the system by dealing it to the epically rich, destroying real markets, and real lives. The more the market is about marketing the market, the less the market is about reality, and the more of a chance it has to devastate us.
Perhaps if enormous companies that possess a great deal of the stock market can trade up and down the price of a stock by themselves alone, and can draw money away from the company and other investors into their own pockets? Sure it is free markets at work, but it is also evil, if not downright dangerous.
morality can easily exist without religion. In fact its better. In the bible, people are punished terribly and painfully for even the slightest sin, or possibly forgiven for the worst sins if they can make jesus orgasm. Oh, and if you don't, you get tortured for eternity. And people think Gitmo was bad. Hitler ain't got SHIT on God. God is perhaps the most unethical proposed existence I have ever heard of.
Human rights? They are fought by religion, and protected by the same people who work to protect truth, science, and logic.
... no? I said water is the perfect thing to look for, and that the article assumes that water doesn't matter. I was simply stating that indeed it does. I mean, they expect us to look for life in the upper-atmosphere and inner-mantle. What the hell are they, nuts?
I bet we could seed the atmosphere of venus with some of the appropriate extremophiles (for the atmosphere anyways), and give it 50-100 years it would start changing. And we should look for something on mars that will allow us to create a thick atmosphere there, so it can be habitable one day. It might not be the only kind of life though, we might also someday discover life in all kinds of places, just not like ours.
This article assumes that life is exactly as it is here. Even here though, it survives near the boiling point of water, in ice, near the mantle, and even a bit in the air. Water certainly helps, and isn't too bad to follow, but any planet in an appropriate place makes at least a bit of sense to check. Even the clouds of Venus, which although they contain sulfuric acid, also contain water and carbon dioxide, are dense and have a lot of electricity, and are nearly as dense as water in places. Seems to me not too terrible a place for microbial life to develop, or maybe to be inserted by us, and watch what happens.
I thought I had run into some that were articles about porn, describing different fetishes and giving brief photo examples. But again, there is nothing wrong with describing part of a culture. Leaving it out of an encyclopedia is literally like pretending it doesn't exist, and society loses A LOT when it pretends parts of it don't exist. Debates over the legality of things flounder because no evidence can be gathered because nobody will pay for it and blah blah blah. It is really terrible.
There is a lot of simple nudity too, and I'm sure that would be hit by the censure too, despite it being no-pornographic.
I too hope we can, as a country, move towards a future when we are not all stuck with our heads barried in the sand, pretending everything is evil.
It is disgusting bastards like you that ruin the internet. Pornography does not ruin relationships. Not even close. I was just in a good relationship for 3 years, and looked at pornography the whole time without issue, the sex was alright (except she had no sense of beat or rhythm, but that applied to music too). It gives ideas and can enhance the sexuality of both members.
Now don't get me wrong, there is porn, and then their is internet-cheating. Internet cheating is certianly wrong by all means, because it is cheating.
Also, in order for a relationship to work with porn, a guy just needs to explain why its needed. It is by no means a replacement or divergence, it just releases spare sexual tension so that you don't spend every waking moment humping your partners leg when they aren't in the mood. Girls sometimes don't understand that, but I find a simple explanation clears things up. And a girl censoring a mans porn, will be restricting his total sex and drive him insane. She clearly is not making up for the lost stimulation, so he left. And porn is about eye candy, and it is a simple chore, sometimes a way to get a couple excited before the big act, or to get ideas, there is no desire for the girls in pornography, they are clearly morons, likely with several STDs and no personality. People have desires, and if they re not filled they can begin to interfere with life, and even lead to side-relationships. You clearly have no sense of what a real man uses porn for.
Also, I must note there has never been a single peer-reviewed study about pornography, its effects, or anything, so making so bold a claim about it because you had a friend that couldn't explain it to his women and a women who was greedy, and wanted a man that would hold himself up and suffer through boughts of extreme horniness wherever he goes and wait for HER in the bedroom all day, does not prove a damn thing about it in general.
Porn is not an easy way out, it is never as good as sex, but you can't have sex every time you get horny. Hell, if that happened to me, my ex-gf would leave me for begging to have sex 3 times a day. Instead, I used porn as an outlet so I didn't have to beg, and when we did it, it was that much better, because she was in the mood.
Considering these facts, how MANY men I know in relationships look at porn all the time, and manage very well, and how the few men I know that don't look at porn literally can't keep a girl more than a week before cheating. AND considering there is no scientific evidence for or against your points at all, the fact that you make them so strongly and ignorantly is absolutely fascinating. I mean seriously, if there are actually men out there that *WANT* the women in pornography, they are retarded. Most don't, it is just something to make masturbation easier so we don't go into the office or classroom ready to fuck the first thing we see with boobs. I am astonished by your one-sided closed minded foolishness, and your assumptions make no sense whatsoever.
How about you reinforce your points with solid logic, including some from the real world, and do not make such claims that it should be banned or removed without extensive scientific studies in the area, and especially don't do so when there is not a single study into it.
Also, Porn is not about fantasizing about insanely hot women, like I said before, there is no attraction to them, just some eye candy to get off to. Really, nobody wants those girls. Plus, the overly skinny ones are nasty, I am sorry, if you are a man that is attracted to anarexic girls with fake boobs and are 80 pounds, you might as well be a pedophile. I never hid my porn, felt no reason too, I had explained it sufficiently, and sometimes she would comment on it. Whatever morons are telling women to lose weight are certainly not on my side, I like my women shaped like women, not like little boys and girls. Men get bombarded by worse images. The female body is generally a beautiful thing, as long as it is less than 35% body fat,
These bastards AGAIN? What the hell, racist, sick, science-hating sons of bitches forcing children into lives of ignorance and unintelligent. Might as well just kidnap the kids and train then into something like "KKK Youth". These people really need to get the hell out of education and leave it to professionals.
As a child I was indoctrinated that society always progressed. This has been false several times in history, most notably the middle ages, and it looks like we are heading into another damn regression of sorts. Maybe not as full thanks to the internet, but it burns every cell in my body to read about it, and watch it happening, and to be demonized for speaking up.
I get so tired of our politics, peoples nonprofessional opinion, religion, and such being the biggest consideration in how we teach history and science. If we are going to do that, why not just reinstitute beating and forced religion in schools? Oh wait, texas did suggest that. These dark ages are going to suck.
What is next, removing anatomical drawings from textbooks because *gasp* BOOBIES?! */gasp*
Seriously, porn is a part of our reality, whether we like it or not, removing it from encyclopedias is like pretending it doesn't exist. Ignoring reality is almost as bad as EVERYTHING that I have seen to date on Fox. Sickening.
When there is an actual, scientific study that shows porn is harmful or helpful, then we can talk about it. We know for a fact violence is harmful. How dare you impose personal morals on the masses with no factual proof or logical evidence to back your claims. Some use the bible, but that is not a source, it is a historical fairy tale, and even if mildly correct it is totally unsuitable for determining what knowledge humanity is allowed to posses, and what information can be considered good or bad.
Information is information, irregardless of your opinions and beliefs. The day the christian community begins to accept science, or just disappear, and studies can be done on the effects of pornography, then you can think about doing something against it. Until then, it is something that nobody nows anything quantitatively about.
There is a clear and enormous difference, and I have yet to come across a single peer-reviewed study in which the effects of viewing pornography have been looked for. Many have problems with violence. There is just something disturbing about a child playing a game like bioshock where they can harvest young girls. Or games like Call of Duty, or Left for Dead, or blah blah blah. Are you seriously going to argue that simple nudity can be more harmful than all of that? I would have a hard time believing that even if I saw such a study, but I have yet to see such a thing. And the problem is, everything from hard core to innocent, non-pornographic nudity is hard-line banned from everything apple.
Your argument that we should ban both is ignoring the scientific reality. I personally have no problem with violence being there, I simply wish to make the point that violence is far less moral than sexuality, and has been proven to be harmful.
How about he keeps his mother fucking bible out of everyone elses pockets. FREE THE iPRODUCTS!
That goes for all of you "moralists" You are neither moral nor good. You make claims without just cause and force your personal opinions on others while disavowing the facts. Shame be-eth on you who are so ignorant as to imagine the censure can be a good thing, or to propose further bans when people ask for no such ban on anything, but for freedom. I have one thing to say to assholes like you: BURN IN HELL.
I posted this on facebook. I think it says it all:
They went by the names Stan and Can. At first they were friends, respecting each other. But after a while, Stan started hooking up with this girl. Can Hated that Stan was getting something done, so he walked up to Stan and punched him in the face repeatedly. Stan is a huge guy, and nows a lot about pretty much everything, and refused to hit back. Can just kept on wailing on Stan until Stan is bloody and bruised. The people in the bar generally rooted Can on, even though he was 6 times the size of Stan. In reality, Can didn't know the slightest damn thing about Stan, but beat him up anyways, like some kind of middle school bully. As Can beat Stan, he got a crazed look in his eye and kept beating him harder when asked why he was doing it, and almost to death when asked to stop. Then Stan dies, and Can kills everyone, and lights the bar on fire.
By the way, replace Stan for S-man For Science-man, and C for C-man for Christianity-man, and bar for the United States. So far it is accurate, but Stan is not dead yet. Maybe Stan should grow some balls and punch Can right in the fucking nuts. Hell yea. I said it.
Some people care about things. He obviously cares about spreading his message of hate, censorship, and spreading the disease called apple corporation. I care about spreading the inverse, and always debate topics I care about. I may be one of the busiest people I know, but I still spend maybe a dozen or two hours a week debating on the internet. Even if I were leader of a major company, gov't, or something else I would persist.
If I were in his position I would do the same thing. However I would not say the same things. When you own a powerful company, and want to make censorship not just for your company, but make it a ubiquitous, good thing. That being the case, I hope he dies in a fire. The control he takes over everything and everyone he comes in contact with is not just terrible, but terrifying. I hope he dies in a fire.
I have a very odd method of handling keys. I wear a belt made of out soda can tabs, each link 4 tabs across. By splitting off 1 link here and there, I can attach various things to my belt, and detach them easily too. Then I just carry what I need on my belt at any given time. Like you say, I leave the keys I am not using at home. The several different knives all stay in pockets, the various torches also, and of course the pocket calculator. No bulge, lots of utility, and it is awesome. The can tab chains are also insanely strong. Certainly no stronger than other chain, but they appear able to support my weight, and I am a tall/well built guy. Combined with the chair, tower, entertainment center, solar heater, and hopefully someday draw bridge, it is a good way to recycle the 4ish twelve packs of diet soda I drink every week.
Although this is clearly funny, i have seen some serious comments similar to this in a way before. Whenever someone brings up software or hardware pricing, there is always some spoiled bastard that says 'man up and pay it out' not realizing that not everyone is made of gold like them. Just thought I would throw that out there.
How does that make me wrong at all? It only applies to large companies, and costs money! That does nothing for the thousands of small companies with only 5-499 employees, which could be warehouses, small hospitals, schools, libraries, car shops and all of that.
Plus, it is still far more economical to use a non-iPad. and to be in their EDD program, you likely have to send code to them for approval. Plus all the devices it is installed on have to be validated through apple likely. Or else jail-breaking an iProduct would be easy, legal, and simple.
Apple saying 'we will let large corporations make some specific apps for their companies' still does nothing to actually open their products to the little guy, and it still leaves it largely useless compared to a tablet with win7 or android or linux.
The appstore is an immoral, disgusting thing, regardless of ways around it. It is a hive of censorship and corporate control, and it is sick. The fact that you can usurp it through long, hard processes and use your device does not make it suddenly moral or escapable. That does nothing to open it up to all but the most niche corporate uses.
The first general computing table that comes out at a reasonable price as a replacement for the iPad will be a great thing, and will bring the future hear. Apples small, mini-processes that allow a few to escape its way for a decent fee and different/more control in other ways do not suddenly make it an open OS. The fact remains it will remain useful for many of these purposes. Other, non-apple tablets will rock.
Although, I will admit it is cute when someone steps into conversation, makes an inane point that doesn't actually say anything important, and makes a steep claim like 100% dead wrong.
I mean, what you basically said is that the 99% of situations that a tablet would be useful in, but the iPad doesn't allow are still there, just 1% corporate uses are suddenly kind of open in a mild way, therefore the 99% of cases don't matter. Seriously. My logic sounds nice because it is nice.
I would certainly hope so. Possessing knowledge of any kind should never become illegal. When such things happen we have lost the most sacred and important of freedoms. This is regardless of whether it is knowledge of devious sexual acts, explosives, poison, or anything else.
Knowing how to make explosives does not make you a terrorist. Even making them for whatever non-terrorist purposes does not make you a terrorist. Using them to incite terror makes you a terrorist. If we are truly willing to call anyone with a knowledge of something bad terrorists, then chemists, biologists, physicists would all be just as evil. It is simply not the case. When you can prove an intent to commit acts of terror, besides simple possession, then it becomes justified. No sooner. I think the whole white supremacists holding poison and wanting others dead is certainly good enough though.
The day that learning becomes illegal, is the day society begins to die.
"One obvious reason - because for companies that currently use Blackberries (and the related apps), the current inability to run custom software is a deterrent to switching to iPhones. (Example use: trucking companies use GPS-enabled Blackberry software to track their trucks in realtime). Opening the gates a bit to capture the corporate market would be a win for Apple."
On a smartphone? why? I would wager that the vast majority of business people use their phones for talking, internet browsing back and forth, and other simple things. I see little reason why apple need penetrate these markets. They have a history of being very picky about their markets, only choosing the markets most willing to conform to their will. This is apple we are talking about, not google.
"These things already exist - at my company we have handhelds to select product in the warehouse, check inventory, etc. Hell, if an iPhone/iPad can run telnet, they could talk to most of our current warehouse software as-is. The future is here, as it were."
Screen size is a major issue. The difference between having to focus on something tiny and having it all lain out beautifully on a tablet computer is astounding. And running custom applications is a far cry from basic connectivity. If by future you mean 10 years ago, then yes, the past is here. I have a color screen palm TX from about 6 years ago, which rivals the screen size of modern handhelds, runs any application I build for it, and is generally awesome. Now modern handhelds require more of the user, in terms of proprietary bullshit.
"At the risk of restating the obvious, I suspect Apple will do these things because it will make them a metric assload of money."
Of course it would make them an assload of money, but so would controlling your customers and milking more money out of them for less service. Plus, if you can get them to pay more for less, then you can get even more money later. And anyways, apple has always been more of a "I would rather take your money that be given it" kind of bastard. They can get millions of people who don't need a tablet computer to buy one, because it is shiny and can run silly games, and then they can bilk that fan-base for more money without them caring. Why risk moving into a market where people care when you try to financially rape them? There is no incentive for a company like apple to do so. If they could make a metric assload of money by doing whats right, they can make a standard gigaStone by being devious, creepy, and exploiting those who don't know they are being exploited. The iPad has already sold massively, and why should apple risk giving up its biggest money making techniques of evil, to tap a market that may be huge, but is nothing compared to what they are making now.
"Even presuming that Apple requires source and not binary (and would enforce that requirement on its corporate clients), it ignores the fact that much of the software the companies use is third-party. For an example, look at MobileCast (made by UPS Logistics). You can buy dedicated widgets, or they have a Blackberry app. Seems like a reasonable assumption that they'll release an iPhone version at some point. (I'm actually a bit surprised that it hasn't already come out).
Also, this doesn't release the "stranglehold" in a bit - for $99 you can buy a developer license and put anything you want on your iWidget. Even if you assume you need once license per device, $99/year is completely in the realm of possibility for any reasonable sized company. So Apple already has given people the ability to run their own software. All I'm suggesting is that it's a reasonable guess that if/when the Fortune 500 starts nudging Steve to give them a way to do this, a way will present itself."
Those third party apps don't come close to the level of usefulness of the program type I am talking about. Also, I had no clue what iWidgets were, so I looked them up. I am not seeing any kind of connection. Mind you, I am quite relatively poor, so don't often hav
Why don't we just raise children in a frictionless vacuum? With no information, as information and sensory experience might make them have feelings, which are clearly all sinful.
Oh right, because that would be the most retarded thing we could possible do as a society, and we are heading their like a china-man on a bullet train. Holy Shit.
Agreeing to disagree is retarded. Unless it is on basic difference. This is not a case of basic difference, this is a big thing.
I am not saying what you paint me to say. I am not saying that supporting non-DRM content is bad, I am saying that the ability of a company (Amazon) to have any kind of control over a device a consumer owns is terrible. Sorry if you misunderstood me. And I don't have a plan necessarily, but I do know that legal change could fix this, and although not likely it is certainly possible. I stand by the fact that getting rid of DRM via economy in all areas, and preventing its spread is not possible via. your tactics. I will note that you are not doing anything wrong, but to believe that you are making a difference when you are not is not a good thing, whereas know what would make a difference, and doing what you can to that end is on the other hand a good thing
That is a step in the right direction. However it still does not include anything that I was talking about. Being used as is, and offering further restriction is not the same as specialized uses.
Using a device as is plus more restrictions does NOT equal using a device with much fewer restrictions.
The idea of apple allowing corp-specific apps is ludicrous. They have no reason to, it would not benefit them in any way, but the freedom would be dangerous to their profit margins. If those apps contained code that allowed more freedom in use of the iPad, then some users would be filtered off through alternative manners of acquiring applications and could potentially harm their profits. At the same time, companies will not be willing to submit their own code to apple so that apple can approve it and allow it. There is no reason whatsosever that this is likely. You speak as if things are obvious out of assumptions, but your assumptions have no logical backing. If you are going to say something, base it on logic.
Also, there would easily be enormous demand for such an ability. A HUGE potential market that is completely untapped. If you don't understand it, then watch a sci-fi movie or show. Most have tablet computers. And it is obvious why. Imagine a simple, specific program, which can monitor certain factors. A warehouse, you can have things in and out tagged, and spots tagged. Anything can be easily found with the tablet, and it can monitor things like the rate of item movement, blah blah blah. Hospitals have massive issues with data. They have a lot of it, and it requires people to be employed solely for the purpose of data input. Now imagine a system that takes the vital statistics displays issues, and automatically updates the patients files. Again, an incredibly simple application, perfect for a tablet computer to replace the clip-boards. Now lets picture a car shop. Hooked up to the wireless, can handle the inventory of parts, read diagnostics of each car in each spot, and have warranties/manuals downloaded, so it can tell you exactly what you need, without having to dissect the car to find the problem. The same kind of benefits happen again and again and again in the so many areas. For you to instantly assume that there is not likely a demand is inane.
My point here is that making statements as you do, so boldly, quickly, and conceitedly, is not only rude, but stupid. If you are going to say "I suspect" then say why. If you are going to doubt something, give a reason to doubt. But making points without giving reasons is like watching teenage girls argue. Pure emotion, no reason, quickly escalating in irrationality and violence and declining as far as reaching a valid conclusion.
Also, you totally ignored the fact that companies would be unlikely to hand over source code of software to apple, and at the same time unlikely that apple would open a possibility of losing their stranglehold on applications which allows it to milk money from everyone with EASE. This kind of lack of logic makes debating on the internet not only crappy, but painful and drudgingly sickening. If more people used full logic on the internet instead of every side of every issue just stating their opinion without backup and then insulting each other, or even continuing logic out one or two steps and failing what the debate reaches the point of questioning oponents definitions of important terms, then debates would be so much more useful and fun. Instead stuck up assholes just state that this is how it is because they say so. Makes me wonder, is/. a place of intellectual debate, or is nerdiness just a subculture that pretends it doesn't have the same problems as other parts of subculture by hiding those problems under the guise of different making ourselves difficult to understand to the average joe? Certainly we have more raw knowledge, and yes we have a better education, and we spend more time doing intellectual work, but where is the logic, the rationality, the deep thought? Th
So you write software for the iPad. How then do you ensure it is installed on all of a set of iPads, and never leaves the doors of your company? How is that possible with the appstore?
My point is that you can write software for yourself on another OS, and use it to your pleasing. You can write it to a disk and transport it. It is something. but with apple? from what I understand it is different. Of course, the horror stories I have heard from literally everyone I know that has an iProduct that is not jailbroken are too terrible for me to risk paying that much and not being able to have freedom over the device.
The kindle hardware is fine, great even, but the physical ability of amazon to remove content, regardless of whether or not they do, is bad. There should not exist the power of a large company to willfully remove content from a costumers device without their consent. This means they can also look at it, and do as they please. It is a sickening prospect, to not have privacy on your own device, which you own and payed for. Even recently they took a bunch of highlights and comments that kindle owners had made in their own books. That is like them coming into my home and stealing the notes from my books! THAT IS SICK! Whether or not they continue, whether or not they do something else, they should not, for any reason, under any circumstance, have that ability.
I actually have not put forth a solution to the problem of DRM, however if you read anything I posted it should be very clear that voting with your money and educating your friends will never make a slightest difference, no matter how many friends you have or how big your family is.
The thing is, the only solution I can imagine to the DRM problem is a massive company that stands against it, offers great content as an alternative to what is out there and covered in DRM bullshit, and sells at reasonable prices. Giving a good, mainstream, popular alternative that is in direct competition with all DRM and proprietary bullshit, but is just as versatile and expansive. Sadly that is unlikely, but the other alternative is finding a way to get ourselves heard by various governments and acting against DRM with the long arm of the law, which is also incredibly hard. But like I said, DRM cannot and will not be killed by any minor sale loss. 5% sale loss from people like us is nothing compared to the 10-25% extra sales from second purchases due to DRM.
I don't mean to sound like an ass, but just saying that you are doing something, no matter how ineffective, will make a difference, will not. DRM will grow until someone can stop it, and the economy of the situation means you are not doing anything at all that is effective.
Literally, if you want all the content out there that has DRM on it, you either pay a shitload of money for something that isn't worth 1/10 its asking price, or you steal it. With things like music, stealing it was mainstream, and companies began to realize there was money to be made changing their business model. The same does not hold true for movies, video games, e-books, software, and so on.
Your sig praises pessimism, but you are overly optimistic about the situation, in an irrational and useless way. I am not a pessimist or an optimist, but a realist, and the reality is that no economic force we can produce as a minority will be able at any point to overwhelm the economic profit of DRM. DRM does not stop pirates, its only true purpose is to make good customers pay again and again for the same thing. They know it, we know it, but that doesn't stop them.
My question is why you ask me what I think is wrong with your plan of action by asking me what mine is. Yours is wrong, regardless of whether or not mine is strange, charmed, backwards, ludacris, or snoop dog. Mine may not be right either, but I have backed it up with decent logic, and i don't think that is much a concern, as such non-activism as yours is widespread, and DRM will take over and get worse, especially with micro-transactions. I imagine that by 2015 there will be DRM re-embedded in music, not for copy protection, but so that it phones home and charges the user a tenth of a cent per listen. Where there is money, there are records, where there are records, there is the ability to violate privacy. Not to mention it would be like your cd player phoning a company and charging you whenever you play a CD that you bought.
Welcome to 2010 and beyond, a world where consumers own nothing that they pay for.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't trust any of them, but sometimes at least their sources check out. With Fox, there isn't even that decency.
I don't know guys, these is coming from FOX news. Reminds me of the kind of "the universe isn't really 18 billion years old, more like 5000" or "the earth is really 4 billion years old, its more like 5000" or "the universe isn't THAT big, its really only us in the center with a bunch of crystal spheres" or "the earth isn't that big, if you try to sail around it, you will just fall off the edge" or ...
Maybe FOX got it from a real news source, but I don't trust FOX.
What happened on May 6th happened in Idiocracy, except worse.
Having something in place to say STOP TRADING when shit goes to hell, like the day the great depression started, the bubble burst, or the housing market crashed. It gives us a chance to stop something terrible in its tracks. The markets will find ways to try to trade down and up things very rapidly unless there is a block. This is a decent sounding block for now. I do agree with the afterposter, that millisecond trading should be banned. It is another way that we can draw profit from real markets, and remove money from the system by dealing it to the epically rich, destroying real markets, and real lives. The more the market is about marketing the market, the less the market is about reality, and the more of a chance it has to devastate us.
Perhaps if enormous companies that possess a great deal of the stock market can trade up and down the price of a stock by themselves alone, and can draw money away from the company and other investors into their own pockets? Sure it is free markets at work, but it is also evil, if not downright dangerous.
morality can easily exist without religion. In fact its better. In the bible, people are punished terribly and painfully for even the slightest sin, or possibly forgiven for the worst sins if they can make jesus orgasm. Oh, and if you don't, you get tortured for eternity. And people think Gitmo was bad. Hitler ain't got SHIT on God. God is perhaps the most unethical proposed existence I have ever heard of.
Human rights? They are fought by religion, and protected by the same people who work to protect truth, science, and logic.
... no? I said water is the perfect thing to look for, and that the article assumes that water doesn't matter. I was simply stating that indeed it does. I mean, they expect us to look for life in the upper-atmosphere and inner-mantle. What the hell are they, nuts?
I bet we could seed the atmosphere of venus with some of the appropriate extremophiles (for the atmosphere anyways), and give it 50-100 years it would start changing. And we should look for something on mars that will allow us to create a thick atmosphere there, so it can be habitable one day. It might not be the only kind of life though, we might also someday discover life in all kinds of places, just not like ours.
Aquaman?
This article assumes that life is exactly as it is here. Even here though, it survives near the boiling point of water, in ice, near the mantle, and even a bit in the air. Water certainly helps, and isn't too bad to follow, but any planet in an appropriate place makes at least a bit of sense to check. Even the clouds of Venus, which although they contain sulfuric acid, also contain water and carbon dioxide, are dense and have a lot of electricity, and are nearly as dense as water in places. Seems to me not too terrible a place for microbial life to develop, or maybe to be inserted by us, and watch what happens.
I thought I had run into some that were articles about porn, describing different fetishes and giving brief photo examples. But again, there is nothing wrong with describing part of a culture. Leaving it out of an encyclopedia is literally like pretending it doesn't exist, and society loses A LOT when it pretends parts of it don't exist. Debates over the legality of things flounder because no evidence can be gathered because nobody will pay for it and blah blah blah. It is really terrible.
There is a lot of simple nudity too, and I'm sure that would be hit by the censure too, despite it being no-pornographic.
I too hope we can, as a country, move towards a future when we are not all stuck with our heads barried in the sand, pretending everything is evil.
It is disgusting bastards like you that ruin the internet. Pornography does not ruin relationships. Not even close. I was just in a good relationship for 3 years, and looked at pornography the whole time without issue, the sex was alright (except she had no sense of beat or rhythm, but that applied to music too). It gives ideas and can enhance the sexuality of both members.
Now don't get me wrong, there is porn, and then their is internet-cheating. Internet cheating is certianly wrong by all means, because it is cheating.
Also, in order for a relationship to work with porn, a guy just needs to explain why its needed. It is by no means a replacement or divergence, it just releases spare sexual tension so that you don't spend every waking moment humping your partners leg when they aren't in the mood. Girls sometimes don't understand that, but I find a simple explanation clears things up. And a girl censoring a mans porn, will be restricting his total sex and drive him insane. She clearly is not making up for the lost stimulation, so he left. And porn is about eye candy, and it is a simple chore, sometimes a way to get a couple excited before the big act, or to get ideas, there is no desire for the girls in pornography, they are clearly morons, likely with several STDs and no personality. People have desires, and if they re not filled they can begin to interfere with life, and even lead to side-relationships. You clearly have no sense of what a real man uses porn for.
Also, I must note there has never been a single peer-reviewed study about pornography, its effects, or anything, so making so bold a claim about it because you had a friend that couldn't explain it to his women and a women who was greedy, and wanted a man that would hold himself up and suffer through boughts of extreme horniness wherever he goes and wait for HER in the bedroom all day, does not prove a damn thing about it in general.
Porn is not an easy way out, it is never as good as sex, but you can't have sex every time you get horny. Hell, if that happened to me, my ex-gf would leave me for begging to have sex 3 times a day. Instead, I used porn as an outlet so I didn't have to beg, and when we did it, it was that much better, because she was in the mood.
Considering these facts, how MANY men I know in relationships look at porn all the time, and manage very well, and how the few men I know that don't look at porn literally can't keep a girl more than a week before cheating. AND considering there is no scientific evidence for or against your points at all, the fact that you make them so strongly and ignorantly is absolutely fascinating. I mean seriously, if there are actually men out there that *WANT* the women in pornography, they are retarded. Most don't, it is just something to make masturbation easier so we don't go into the office or classroom ready to fuck the first thing we see with boobs. I am astonished by your one-sided closed minded foolishness, and your assumptions make no sense whatsoever.
How about you reinforce your points with solid logic, including some from the real world, and do not make such claims that it should be banned or removed without extensive scientific studies in the area, and especially don't do so when there is not a single study into it.
Also, Porn is not about fantasizing about insanely hot women, like I said before, there is no attraction to them, just some eye candy to get off to. Really, nobody wants those girls. Plus, the overly skinny ones are nasty, I am sorry, if you are a man that is attracted to anarexic girls with fake boobs and are 80 pounds, you might as well be a pedophile. I never hid my porn, felt no reason too, I had explained it sufficiently, and sometimes she would comment on it. Whatever morons are telling women to lose weight are certainly not on my side, I like my women shaped like women, not like little boys and girls. Men get bombarded by worse images. The female body is generally a beautiful thing, as long as it is less than 35% body fat,
These bastards AGAIN? What the hell, racist, sick, science-hating sons of bitches forcing children into lives of ignorance and unintelligent. Might as well just kidnap the kids and train then into something like "KKK Youth". These people really need to get the hell out of education and leave it to professionals.
As a child I was indoctrinated that society always progressed. This has been false several times in history, most notably the middle ages, and it looks like we are heading into another damn regression of sorts. Maybe not as full thanks to the internet, but it burns every cell in my body to read about it, and watch it happening, and to be demonized for speaking up.
I get so tired of our politics, peoples nonprofessional opinion, religion, and such being the biggest consideration in how we teach history and science. If we are going to do that, why not just reinstitute beating and forced religion in schools? Oh wait, texas did suggest that. These dark ages are going to suck.
What is next, removing anatomical drawings from textbooks because *gasp* BOOBIES?! */gasp*
Seriously, porn is a part of our reality, whether we like it or not, removing it from encyclopedias is like pretending it doesn't exist. Ignoring reality is almost as bad as EVERYTHING that I have seen to date on Fox. Sickening.
When there is an actual, scientific study that shows porn is harmful or helpful, then we can talk about it. We know for a fact violence is harmful. How dare you impose personal morals on the masses with no factual proof or logical evidence to back your claims. Some use the bible, but that is not a source, it is a historical fairy tale, and even if mildly correct it is totally unsuitable for determining what knowledge humanity is allowed to posses, and what information can be considered good or bad.
Information is information, irregardless of your opinions and beliefs. The day the christian community begins to accept science, or just disappear, and studies can be done on the effects of pornography, then you can think about doing something against it. Until then, it is something that nobody nows anything quantitatively about.
There is a clear and enormous difference, and I have yet to come across a single peer-reviewed study in which the effects of viewing pornography have been looked for. Many have problems with violence. There is just something disturbing about a child playing a game like bioshock where they can harvest young girls. Or games like Call of Duty, or Left for Dead, or blah blah blah. Are you seriously going to argue that simple nudity can be more harmful than all of that? I would have a hard time believing that even if I saw such a study, but I have yet to see such a thing. And the problem is, everything from hard core to innocent, non-pornographic nudity is hard-line banned from everything apple.
Your argument that we should ban both is ignoring the scientific reality. I personally have no problem with violence being there, I simply wish to make the point that violence is far less moral than sexuality, and has been proven to be harmful.
How about he keeps his mother fucking bible out of everyone elses pockets. FREE THE iPRODUCTS!
That goes for all of you "moralists" You are neither moral nor good. You make claims without just cause and force your personal opinions on others while disavowing the facts. Shame be-eth on you who are so ignorant as to imagine the censure can be a good thing, or to propose further bans when people ask for no such ban on anything, but for freedom. I have one thing to say to assholes like you: BURN IN HELL.
I posted this on facebook. I think it says it all:
They went by the names Stan and Can. At first they were friends, respecting each other. But after a while, Stan started hooking up with this girl. Can Hated that Stan was getting something done, so he walked up to Stan and punched him in the face repeatedly. Stan is a huge guy, and nows a lot about pretty much everything, and refused to hit back. Can just kept on wailing on Stan until Stan is bloody and bruised. The people in the bar generally rooted Can on, even though he was 6 times the size of Stan. In reality, Can didn't know the slightest damn thing about Stan, but beat him up anyways, like some kind of middle school bully. As Can beat Stan, he got a crazed look in his eye and kept beating him harder when asked why he was doing it, and almost to death when asked to stop. Then Stan dies, and Can kills everyone, and lights the bar on fire.
By the way, replace Stan for S-man For Science-man, and C for C-man for Christianity-man, and bar for the United States. So far it is accurate, but Stan is not dead yet. Maybe Stan should grow some balls and punch Can right in the fucking nuts. Hell yea. I said it.
Some people care about things. He obviously cares about spreading his message of hate, censorship, and spreading the disease called apple corporation. I care about spreading the inverse, and always debate topics I care about. I may be one of the busiest people I know, but I still spend maybe a dozen or two hours a week debating on the internet. Even if I were leader of a major company, gov't, or something else I would persist.
If I were in his position I would do the same thing. However I would not say the same things. When you own a powerful company, and want to make censorship not just for your company, but make it a ubiquitous, good thing. That being the case, I hope he dies in a fire. The control he takes over everything and everyone he comes in contact with is not just terrible, but terrifying. I hope he dies in a fire.
I have a very odd method of handling keys. I wear a belt made of out soda can tabs, each link 4 tabs across. By splitting off 1 link here and there, I can attach various things to my belt, and detach them easily too. Then I just carry what I need on my belt at any given time. Like you say, I leave the keys I am not using at home. The several different knives all stay in pockets, the various torches also, and of course the pocket calculator. No bulge, lots of utility, and it is awesome. The can tab chains are also insanely strong. Certainly no stronger than other chain, but they appear able to support my weight, and I am a tall/well built guy. Combined with the chair, tower, entertainment center, solar heater, and hopefully someday draw bridge, it is a good way to recycle the 4ish twelve packs of diet soda I drink every week.
Although this is clearly funny, i have seen some serious comments similar to this in a way before. Whenever someone brings up software or hardware pricing, there is always some spoiled bastard that says 'man up and pay it out' not realizing that not everyone is made of gold like them. Just thought I would throw that out there.
How does that make me wrong at all? It only applies to large companies, and costs money! That does nothing for the thousands of small companies with only 5-499 employees, which could be warehouses, small hospitals, schools, libraries, car shops and all of that.
Plus, it is still far more economical to use a non-iPad. and to be in their EDD program, you likely have to send code to them for approval. Plus all the devices it is installed on have to be validated through apple likely. Or else jail-breaking an iProduct would be easy, legal, and simple.
Apple saying 'we will let large corporations make some specific apps for their companies' still does nothing to actually open their products to the little guy, and it still leaves it largely useless compared to a tablet with win7 or android or linux.
The appstore is an immoral, disgusting thing, regardless of ways around it. It is a hive of censorship and corporate control, and it is sick. The fact that you can usurp it through long, hard processes and use your device does not make it suddenly moral or escapable. That does nothing to open it up to all but the most niche corporate uses.
The first general computing table that comes out at a reasonable price as a replacement for the iPad will be a great thing, and will bring the future hear. Apples small, mini-processes that allow a few to escape its way for a decent fee and different/more control in other ways do not suddenly make it an open OS. The fact remains it will remain useful for many of these purposes. Other, non-apple tablets will rock.
Although, I will admit it is cute when someone steps into conversation, makes an inane point that doesn't actually say anything important, and makes a steep claim like 100% dead wrong.
I mean, what you basically said is that the 99% of situations that a tablet would be useful in, but the iPad doesn't allow are still there, just 1% corporate uses are suddenly kind of open in a mild way, therefore the 99% of cases don't matter. Seriously. My logic sounds nice because it is nice.
I would certainly hope so. Possessing knowledge of any kind should never become illegal. When such things happen we have lost the most sacred and important of freedoms. This is regardless of whether it is knowledge of devious sexual acts, explosives, poison, or anything else.
Knowing how to make explosives does not make you a terrorist. Even making them for whatever non-terrorist purposes does not make you a terrorist. Using them to incite terror makes you a terrorist. If we are truly willing to call anyone with a knowledge of something bad terrorists, then chemists, biologists, physicists would all be just as evil. It is simply not the case. When you can prove an intent to commit acts of terror, besides simple possession, then it becomes justified. No sooner. I think the whole white supremacists holding poison and wanting others dead is certainly good enough though.
The day that learning becomes illegal, is the day society begins to die.
"One obvious reason - because for companies that currently use Blackberries (and the related apps), the current inability to run custom software is a deterrent to switching to iPhones. (Example use: trucking companies use GPS-enabled Blackberry software to track their trucks in realtime). Opening the gates a bit to capture the corporate market would be a win for Apple."
On a smartphone? why? I would wager that the vast majority of business people use their phones for talking, internet browsing back and forth, and other simple things. I see little reason why apple need penetrate these markets. They have a history of being very picky about their markets, only choosing the markets most willing to conform to their will. This is apple we are talking about, not google.
"These things already exist - at my company we have handhelds to select product in the warehouse, check inventory, etc. Hell, if an iPhone/iPad can run telnet, they could talk to most of our current warehouse software as-is. The future is here, as it were."
Screen size is a major issue. The difference between having to focus on something tiny and having it all lain out beautifully on a tablet computer is astounding. And running custom applications is a far cry from basic connectivity. If by future you mean 10 years ago, then yes, the past is here. I have a color screen palm TX from about 6 years ago, which rivals the screen size of modern handhelds, runs any application I build for it, and is generally awesome. Now modern handhelds require more of the user, in terms of proprietary bullshit.
"At the risk of restating the obvious, I suspect Apple will do these things because it will make them a metric assload of money."
Of course it would make them an assload of money, but so would controlling your customers and milking more money out of them for less service. Plus, if you can get them to pay more for less, then you can get even more money later. And anyways, apple has always been more of a "I would rather take your money that be given it" kind of bastard. They can get millions of people who don't need a tablet computer to buy one, because it is shiny and can run silly games, and then they can bilk that fan-base for more money without them caring. Why risk moving into a market where people care when you try to financially rape them? There is no incentive for a company like apple to do so. If they could make a metric assload of money by doing whats right, they can make a standard gigaStone by being devious, creepy, and exploiting those who don't know they are being exploited. The iPad has already sold massively, and why should apple risk giving up its biggest money making techniques of evil, to tap a market that may be huge, but is nothing compared to what they are making now.
"Even presuming that Apple requires source and not binary (and would enforce that requirement on its corporate clients), it ignores the fact that much of the software the companies use is third-party. For an example, look at MobileCast (made by UPS Logistics). You can buy dedicated widgets, or they have a Blackberry app. Seems like a reasonable assumption that they'll release an iPhone version at some point. (I'm actually a bit surprised that it hasn't already come out).
Also, this doesn't release the "stranglehold" in a bit - for $99 you can buy a developer license and put anything you want on your iWidget. Even if you assume you need once license per device, $99/year is completely in the realm of possibility for any reasonable sized company. So Apple already has given people the ability to run their own software. All I'm suggesting is that it's a reasonable guess that if/when the Fortune 500 starts nudging Steve to give them a way to do this, a way will present itself."
Those third party apps don't come close to the level of usefulness of the program type I am talking about. Also, I had no clue what iWidgets were, so I looked them up. I am not seeing any kind of connection. Mind you, I am quite relatively poor, so don't often hav
Why don't we just raise children in a frictionless vacuum? With no information, as information and sensory experience might make them have feelings, which are clearly all sinful.
Oh right, because that would be the most retarded thing we could possible do as a society, and we are heading their like a china-man on a bullet train. Holy Shit.
Agreeing to disagree is retarded. Unless it is on basic difference. This is not a case of basic difference, this is a big thing.
I am not saying what you paint me to say. I am not saying that supporting non-DRM content is bad, I am saying that the ability of a company (Amazon) to have any kind of control over a device a consumer owns is terrible. Sorry if you misunderstood me. And I don't have a plan necessarily, but I do know that legal change could fix this, and although not likely it is certainly possible. I stand by the fact that getting rid of DRM via economy in all areas, and preventing its spread is not possible via. your tactics. I will note that you are not doing anything wrong, but to believe that you are making a difference when you are not is not a good thing, whereas know what would make a difference, and doing what you can to that end is on the other hand a good thing
That is a step in the right direction. However it still does not include anything that I was talking about. Being used as is, and offering further restriction is not the same as specialized uses.
Using a device as is plus more restrictions does NOT equal using a device with much fewer restrictions.
The idea of apple allowing corp-specific apps is ludicrous. They have no reason to, it would not benefit them in any way, but the freedom would be dangerous to their profit margins. If those apps contained code that allowed more freedom in use of the iPad, then some users would be filtered off through alternative manners of acquiring applications and could potentially harm their profits. At the same time, companies will not be willing to submit their own code to apple so that apple can approve it and allow it. There is no reason whatsosever that this is likely. You speak as if things are obvious out of assumptions, but your assumptions have no logical backing. If you are going to say something, base it on logic.
Also, there would easily be enormous demand for such an ability. A HUGE potential market that is completely untapped. If you don't understand it, then watch a sci-fi movie or show. Most have tablet computers. And it is obvious why. Imagine a simple, specific program, which can monitor certain factors. A warehouse, you can have things in and out tagged, and spots tagged. Anything can be easily found with the tablet, and it can monitor things like the rate of item movement, blah blah blah. Hospitals have massive issues with data. They have a lot of it, and it requires people to be employed solely for the purpose of data input. Now imagine a system that takes the vital statistics displays issues, and automatically updates the patients files. Again, an incredibly simple application, perfect for a tablet computer to replace the clip-boards. Now lets picture a car shop. Hooked up to the wireless, can handle the inventory of parts, read diagnostics of each car in each spot, and have warranties/manuals downloaded, so it can tell you exactly what you need, without having to dissect the car to find the problem. The same kind of benefits happen again and again and again in the so many areas. For you to instantly assume that there is not likely a demand is inane.
My point here is that making statements as you do, so boldly, quickly, and conceitedly, is not only rude, but stupid. If you are going to say "I suspect" then say why. If you are going to doubt something, give a reason to doubt. But making points without giving reasons is like watching teenage girls argue. Pure emotion, no reason, quickly escalating in irrationality and violence and declining as far as reaching a valid conclusion.
Also, you totally ignored the fact that companies would be unlikely to hand over source code of software to apple, and at the same time unlikely that apple would open a possibility of losing their stranglehold on applications which allows it to milk money from everyone with EASE. This kind of lack of logic makes debating on the internet not only crappy, but painful and drudgingly sickening. If more people used full logic on the internet instead of every side of every issue just stating their opinion without backup and then insulting each other, or even continuing logic out one or two steps and failing what the debate reaches the point of questioning oponents definitions of important terms, then debates would be so much more useful and fun. Instead stuck up assholes just state that this is how it is because they say so. Makes me wonder, is /. a place of intellectual debate, or is nerdiness just a subculture that pretends it doesn't have the same problems as other parts of subculture by hiding those problems under the guise of different making ourselves difficult to understand to the average joe? Certainly we have more raw knowledge, and yes we have a better education, and we spend more time doing intellectual work, but where is the logic, the rationality, the deep thought? Th
So you write software for the iPad. How then do you ensure it is installed on all of a set of iPads, and never leaves the doors of your company? How is that possible with the appstore?
My point is that you can write software for yourself on another OS, and use it to your pleasing. You can write it to a disk and transport it. It is something. but with apple? from what I understand it is different. Of course, the horror stories I have heard from literally everyone I know that has an iProduct that is not jailbroken are too terrible for me to risk paying that much and not being able to have freedom over the device.
The kindle hardware is fine, great even, but the physical ability of amazon to remove content, regardless of whether or not they do, is bad. There should not exist the power of a large company to willfully remove content from a costumers device without their consent. This means they can also look at it, and do as they please. It is a sickening prospect, to not have privacy on your own device, which you own and payed for. Even recently they took a bunch of highlights and comments that kindle owners had made in their own books. That is like them coming into my home and stealing the notes from my books! THAT IS SICK! Whether or not they continue, whether or not they do something else, they should not, for any reason, under any circumstance, have that ability.
I actually have not put forth a solution to the problem of DRM, however if you read anything I posted it should be very clear that voting with your money and educating your friends will never make a slightest difference, no matter how many friends you have or how big your family is.
The thing is, the only solution I can imagine to the DRM problem is a massive company that stands against it, offers great content as an alternative to what is out there and covered in DRM bullshit, and sells at reasonable prices. Giving a good, mainstream, popular alternative that is in direct competition with all DRM and proprietary bullshit, but is just as versatile and expansive. Sadly that is unlikely, but the other alternative is finding a way to get ourselves heard by various governments and acting against DRM with the long arm of the law, which is also incredibly hard. But like I said, DRM cannot and will not be killed by any minor sale loss. 5% sale loss from people like us is nothing compared to the 10-25% extra sales from second purchases due to DRM.
I don't mean to sound like an ass, but just saying that you are doing something, no matter how ineffective, will make a difference, will not. DRM will grow until someone can stop it, and the economy of the situation means you are not doing anything at all that is effective.
Literally, if you want all the content out there that has DRM on it, you either pay a shitload of money for something that isn't worth 1/10 its asking price, or you steal it. With things like music, stealing it was mainstream, and companies began to realize there was money to be made changing their business model. The same does not hold true for movies, video games, e-books, software, and so on.
Your sig praises pessimism, but you are overly optimistic about the situation, in an irrational and useless way. I am not a pessimist or an optimist, but a realist, and the reality is that no economic force we can produce as a minority will be able at any point to overwhelm the economic profit of DRM. DRM does not stop pirates, its only true purpose is to make good customers pay again and again for the same thing. They know it, we know it, but that doesn't stop them.
My question is why you ask me what I think is wrong with your plan of action by asking me what mine is. Yours is wrong, regardless of whether or not mine is strange, charmed, backwards, ludacris, or snoop dog. Mine may not be right either, but I have backed it up with decent logic, and i don't think that is much a concern, as such non-activism as yours is widespread, and DRM will take over and get worse, especially with micro-transactions. I imagine that by 2015 there will be DRM re-embedded in music, not for copy protection, but so that it phones home and charges the user a tenth of a cent per listen. Where there is money, there are records, where there are records, there is the ability to violate privacy. Not to mention it would be like your cd player phoning a company and charging you whenever you play a CD that you bought.
Welcome to 2010 and beyond, a world where consumers own nothing that they pay for.