Yes it is. Apple, Microsoft and Google both have systems in places so that the data is encrypted at rest where they don't have the keys. Apple is putting things in place so that the data is not stored on their servers at all.
In most companies the question is not whether they do or don't pay for support but rather what systems are supported to what level. No company has the technical depth to deal with the entire Linux stack, with the possible exception of IBM. Low criticality systems can have problems but because they are low criticality the company has time to find resolution so they tolerate greater levels of mistakes in exchange for lower costs. As you get closer to the center support becomes more important because they want a depth of experience that only a contract can buy. With bigger companies that support contract is held by a vendor who has multiple support contracts.
I'd say for most small companies the best approach is a good IaaS/PaaS provider with very little internal. For larger companies multiple overlapping systems of support including a wide range of internal knowledge.
You are quoting out of context. There was nothing duplicitous about it, every step was clearly explained and logic if you thought for a second what you were doing. And of course Apple doesn't restore music it isn't managing. Why would you expect it to? I don't expect your backups to contain my files.
By definition the people using products are either relatively unaffected by the flaws, or unaware of them. The people most aware of or most affected by flaws are among the least likely to use the product. That's just common sense.
Yeah but that doesn't justify the antagonism. For example lots of Chinese use a writing keyboard for characters and many of those suck and have flaws. I don't spend a lot of time talking about them though.
. My wife's Macbook has a dying battery (after just a year or two)
You buy the 3 year warranty and they do an excellent job of repair. I've had battery problems and they most certainly do fix them.
Is that what I pay the extra money to Apple for? Shouldn't I be getting better hardware, not worse?
You are getting better hardware.
And who gives a fuck about the OS... the difference between Mac and Linux for me is the color of the icons.
Then definitely go Windows. You are paying for OSX and you are paying for Mac applications. If Linux fits your needs I'd go with the huge diversity of Windows laptops.
Those complaints in the "playing well with others" they both kinda suck at. Even their defenders concede that point. FWIW they are both getting better. Apple used to be much worse about compatibility a decade ago. Microsoft has the "we are the standard". Funny enough Office, at least: Word, PowerPoint and Excel works pretty darn well between them. Office for Mac has been a rather good seller for Microsoft for decades.
The original claim was computer scientists. Professional programmers are even better documented on their productivity since the 1950s. Essentially the old rule that lines of code are constant so higher level languages result in vastly more productivity in exchange for worse runtime performance. There also is no question that the built in abstraction makes an even bigger difference both in what is eventually produced.
Yep. You'll see the people who need Oracle's features say positive things about it. People who have to admin hundreds of databases, or very large tables or need to tweak queries. I've definitely seen the Oracle users stand up for Oracle. I've seen the "I could easily run this on MySQL but I have to use Oracle" crowd say bad stuff as well though.
I've observed that flaws in Apple products seem to most affect those who do not use Apple products.
Well said. There are criticisms of Apple products by Apple users. But they have a level of nuance that's appropriate. The Apple haters who know nothing of Apple products yet thing they do, you end up having to argue with all the time. I've noticed the same thing about Oracle on/. as well whenever databases come up.
IOTW, folks confuse language syntax with the libraries the language has.
Libraries aren't the issue, it is the choice of primitives. The reason shell scripting languages are so pleasant for system administration is because files are a primitive. cp/X1/X2/X2/Y1/Y2 working is huge in simplifying the code conceptually. That's why DSL's exist, to allow programers to work with better primitives.
In the case of Swift the primitives are Cocoa data structures. And there wasn't another high level language with those primitives.
A computer scientist can implement any algorithm in any language.
That's been proven false by computer scientists. Qi about 15 years ago did some tests where they took some Qi routines and asked people (professors and graduates in computer science) to implement in LISP, C, Prolog, Java and a few others that escape me. Only the LISP team were able to get through the list and their code was dreadfully complex.
That's plausible. He didn't bother to tell iTunes about his rsyncing since iTunes has rsync support so it doesn't use the rsync command and thus it is just doing a raw copy that rsync sees as a delete / create rather than move....
But the comment was of course about how Apple deletes your.mp3s because, "Apple considers us subhuman and has no respect for us or our property" vs. Apple doesn't delete anything and reorganizes your files because you told them to; and your backup can't understand the reorganization because you didn't bother to notify the iTunes application to coordinate with your backup solution it fully supports.
So anyway I think we agree in the big stuff. He was trolling and being very inaccurate.
Oh absolutely. iTunes has restructured the files several times. Though if you want to preserve locations it will. Apple uses rsync as the underlying technology of time machine so I believe it does use rync tree moves for iTunes but I'd have to check. Moreover it isn't deleting the files as is obvious from just looking at iTunes itself. So... no I'm coming down on the side of BS. Were he actually being this careful about iTunes he would have noticed that most likely there is a Ramones directory...
You can use whatever you want as a music manager for iPhone. And back in 2004 (before there was an iPhone) there were music managers that supported iPods including open source ones.
Baloney. iTunes just manages mp3's as entries it doesn't delete songs. If they were deleted from the library something else is wrong like the underlying files don't exist.
If the First Amendment really does protect the right to sell (adult) pornography (a rather obvious perversion of the Founder's intentions — if we really cared about them), the Second ought to protect owning and bearing of not only brass-knuckles [thelawdictionary.org] and swords [findlaw.com], but rocket-launchers and tanks — and certainly "assault" rifles [ct.gov] of any magazine-capacity [wikipedia.org]...
I agree. It is hard to know what the Founders would have supported. Napoleon hadn't changed the nature of war yet. They were still living in a world where war was structurally not much different than it was in the later middle ages. But I do suspect would have supported civilian armaments capable of forming a modern ground army. Which means in particular artillery. So I agree with you there.
As far as the right to sell pornography. The first amendment for the founders was what the Federal government would ban. The ideas of the 14th amendment where the Bill of Rights applied to the state law didn't exist yet and would have been opposed by them.
What has changed to these limits since the 60-ies? Not the laws... It is just the Illiberals of the past, who enjoyed the Amendment's protections back then (see Tinker v. Des Moines of 1969 [wikipedia.org], for one example — that it was about school rather than college is immaterial here), have grown-up, taken the comfortable (semi)-government jobs, and no longer recognize the Amendment as applicable in the same circumstances.
The laws guaranteeing protest today are much stronger than they were in the 1960s. The social pressures against protest are much weaker than they were in the 1960s. You have far more freedom not less. On the other hand, you don't have the kind of broad opposition to policy involving tens of millions. Mass movements aren't nearly as mass because our politics has become more individual.
The fact is though that protests on campuses happen all the time. There are no broad restrictions. Some situation that happened once or a few times is not evidence of a widespread crackdown.
Here's a basic litmus test. Will you agree to be searched before boarding a flight, or will you tell the person that you're an American, and you refuse to have your basic civil rights violated? It's ok to answer honestly, I just would like to know since I'd like a tax on folks like you, to fund people like me since we need more ammunition since you aren't stepping up to be ready to fight for your freedom.
I board airplanes all the time. I don't think you are likely to be able to beat the government via. a military. Nor do I see why the government you are arming yourself to overthrow would be interested in taxing me to fund your rebellion.
The whole point of America is and was Freedom.
No it wasn't. The founders were quite aware of more free societies that had formed that were far more free than what they advocated, example Polish Unitarians of the 16th century. They wanted a regulated society not a maximally free society. They wanted certain types of freedom like complex property that required a tremendous loss of freedom in other areas, they understood that and they accepted it.
You truly are arguing that the Bill of Rights should be called the Bill of Privileges. If all a government has to do to (Constitutionally) confiscate the weapons of the citizens is declare that any existing militias aren't "well regulated" and thus the "right" to keep and bear arms doesn't apply to anyone, then the "right" to keep and bear arms truly is a privilege.
Yep. And the type of thinking you are engaging in is very 19th+ century. That's the denial of the very Natural Law foundations that your other paragraphs about "rights" in an 18th century way deny. You see law as arbitrary, they didn't.
Rights cannot be granted by governments, they exist and are recognized as such. Even our government has admitted that rights are granted by the creator and not by government itself. Rights which required a government to grant are not rights, they are privileges. "The Bill of Privileges" just doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?
I think you need to separate out interpretation from belief.
a) What did the founders believe b) What is true
You can interpret the founders without agreeing with them. The founders believed in a concept of natural law, and one that was heavily ground in the post Elizabethan English political philosophy which emerged from thinkers like Locke, and the Scottish Reformed tradition. Certainly they believed that men should be naturally free and institutions like church and state conspired to create bondage. Many of those ideas have seeped into America's political culture.
You cannot on the one hand argue that one should ignore everything the founders wrote and examine the text of the constitution as nakedly as possible and on the other hand turn to their writings in another document entirely for "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" and then writings that are even less formal in what they meant by that clause. Either you interpret what they meant or you don't.
You are applying two different standards in your method of interpretation. One where you want to ignore context because it doesn't fit with your philosophy and in another embrace the context because you agree. Today's political culture has gone through all of modernism and into postmodernism. For example evolution, which was a core idea of the later Victorian Moralizers of the late 19th century plays a much larger role in our political science than it did for them. We talk about rights in terms that mostly ignore the idea of a natural law because we believe that most law is arbitrary. We've seen too many cultures that they hadn't to believe that any society would have similar laws.
If you believe that militia membership as the only reason the privilege of owning a gun was important, then you're ignoring the entire concept of armed rebellion from corrupt government -- something the founders were VERY familiar with.
No I'm not. One of the mechanism they put in place to make rebellion simple was avoiding the tyranny of a militia. They didn't have less of a belief in rebellion than current gun rights advocates, they had more of one. They wanted a government structurally incapable of oppression rather than the one you are advocating which is capable of repression but that would have a substantial terrorism problem because of so many civilian arms.
Their action was to recognize the right to keep and bear arms without any requirement that they be kept and born for use in a militia.
I don't agree with you. Their action was the right to keep and bear arms as part of a militia. They didn't consider the two as separable. That evolved much later.
I agree not a standing army. Read up the thread. That's what I'm arguing. As for the entire people, not quite. Colonial militias weren't that inclusive. They were a quasi-volunteer but with lots of pressure and financial incentive sort of situation. They weren't universal enlistment.
It means that the founders included a subordinate clause giving just one of the reasons why this specific inalienable right was important to protect.
Exactly! The right was granted because they believed in militias.
they'd have said that explicitly.
They did say it explicitly. Multiple times both at the convention, before and after.
I'm pretty sure that this "pretty clear" statement does not appear in the Constitution, and I know that it does not appear in the 2nd amendment. What one or two of the founders wrote elsewhere about why they supported the 2nd amendment, or why they think the 2nd amendment is good for the government and not just the citizenry, isn't binding on the rest of them, and it doesn't put limits on the clear language that was actually ratified.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it is. Apple, Microsoft and Google both have systems in places so that the data is encrypted at rest where they don't have the keys. Apple is putting things in place so that the data is not stored on their servers at all.
In most companies the question is not whether they do or don't pay for support but rather what systems are supported to what level. No company has the technical depth to deal with the entire Linux stack, with the possible exception of IBM. Low criticality systems can have problems but because they are low criticality the company has time to find resolution so they tolerate greater levels of mistakes in exchange for lower costs. As you get closer to the center support becomes more important because they want a depth of experience that only a contract can buy. With bigger companies that support contract is held by a vendor who has multiple support contracts.
I'd say for most small companies the best approach is a good IaaS/PaaS provider with very little internal. For larger companies multiple overlapping systems of support including a wide range of internal knowledge.
You are quoting out of context. There was nothing duplicitous about it, every step was clearly explained and logic if you thought for a second what you were doing. And of course Apple doesn't restore music it isn't managing. Why would you expect it to? I don't expect your backups to contain my files.
Yeah but that doesn't justify the antagonism. For example lots of Chinese use a writing keyboard for characters and many of those suck and have flaws. I don't spend a lot of time talking about them though.
You buy the 3 year warranty and they do an excellent job of repair. I've had battery problems and they most certainly do fix them.
You are getting better hardware.
Then definitely go Windows. You are paying for OSX and you are paying for Mac applications. If Linux fits your needs I'd go with the huge diversity of Windows laptops.
Those complaints in the "playing well with others" they both kinda suck at. Even their defenders concede that point. FWIW they are both getting better. Apple used to be much worse about compatibility a decade ago. Microsoft has the "we are the standard". Funny enough Office, at least: Word, PowerPoint and Excel works pretty darn well between them. Office for Mac has been a rather good seller for Microsoft for decades.
The original claim was computer scientists. Professional programmers are even better documented on their productivity since the 1950s. Essentially the old rule that lines of code are constant so higher level languages result in vastly more productivity in exchange for worse runtime performance. There also is no question that the built in abstraction makes an even bigger difference both in what is eventually produced.
Yep. You'll see the people who need Oracle's features say positive things about it. People who have to admin hundreds of databases, or very large tables or need to tweak queries. I've definitely seen the Oracle users stand up for Oracle. I've seen the "I could easily run this on MySQL but I have to use Oracle" crowd say bad stuff as well though.
I've been preaching this for 2 decades. If everyone were paying overtime we'd have a much better country.
Well said. There are criticisms of Apple products by Apple users. But they have a level of nuance that's appropriate. The Apple haters who know nothing of Apple products yet thing they do, you end up having to argue with all the time. I've noticed the same thing about Oracle on /. as well whenever databases come up.
Libraries aren't the issue, it is the choice of primitives. The reason shell scripting languages are so pleasant for system administration is because files are a primitive. cp /X1/X2/X2 /Y1/Y2 working is huge in simplifying the code conceptually. That's why DSL's exist, to allow programers to work with better primitives.
In the case of Swift the primitives are Cocoa data structures. And there wasn't another high level language with those primitives.
That's been proven false by computer scientists. Qi about 15 years ago did some tests where they took some Qi routines and asked people (professors and graduates in computer science) to implement in LISP, C, Prolog, Java and a few others that escape me. Only the LISP team were able to get through the list and their code was dreadfully complex.
That's plausible. He didn't bother to tell iTunes about his rsyncing since iTunes has rsync support so it doesn't use the rsync command and thus it is just doing a raw copy that rsync sees as a delete / create rather than move....
But the comment was of course about how Apple deletes your .mp3s because, "Apple considers us subhuman and has no respect for us or our property" vs. Apple doesn't delete anything and reorganizes your files because you told them to; and your backup can't understand the reorganization because you didn't bother to notify the iTunes application to coordinate with your backup solution it fully supports.
So anyway I think we agree in the big stuff. He was trolling and being very inaccurate.
Oh absolutely. iTunes has restructured the files several times. Though if you want to preserve locations it will. Apple uses rsync as the underlying technology of time machine so I believe it does use rync tree moves for iTunes but I'd have to check. Moreover it isn't deleting the files as is obvious from just looking at iTunes itself. So... no I'm coming down on the side of BS. Were he actually being this careful about iTunes he would have noticed that most likely there is a Ramones directory...
I don't need a my neighbor's DNA to understand whether they were or were not North Korea last week.
I know how this software works. It isn't complex.
You can use whatever you want as a music manager for iPhone. And back in 2004 (before there was an iPhone) there were music managers that supported iPods including open source ones.
Someone mod this up. I couldn't make heads or tails of what the lawsuit was talking about. This guy got it. Makes sense now.
Baloney. iTunes just manages mp3's as entries it doesn't delete songs. If they were deleted from the library something else is wrong like the underlying files don't exist.
I agree. It is hard to know what the Founders would have supported. Napoleon hadn't changed the nature of war yet. They were still living in a world where war was structurally not much different than it was in the later middle ages. But I do suspect would have supported civilian armaments capable of forming a modern ground army. Which means in particular artillery. So I agree with you there.
As far as the right to sell pornography. The first amendment for the founders was what the Federal government would ban. The ideas of the 14th amendment where the Bill of Rights applied to the state law didn't exist yet and would have been opposed by them.
The laws guaranteeing protest today are much stronger than they were in the 1960s. The social pressures against protest are much weaker than they were in the 1960s. You have far more freedom not less. On the other hand, you don't have the kind of broad opposition to policy involving tens of millions. Mass movements aren't nearly as mass because our politics has become more individual.
The fact is though that protests on campuses happen all the time. There are no broad restrictions. Some situation that happened once or a few times is not evidence of a widespread crackdown.
I board airplanes all the time. I don't think you are likely to be able to beat the government via. a military. Nor do I see why the government you are arming yourself to overthrow would be interested in taxing me to fund your rebellion.
No it wasn't. The founders were quite aware of more free societies that had formed that were far more free than what they advocated, example Polish Unitarians of the 16th century. They wanted a regulated society not a maximally free society. They wanted certain types of freedom like complex property that required a tremendous loss of freedom in other areas, they understood that and they accepted it.
Yep. And the type of thinking you are engaging in is very 19th+ century. That's the denial of the very Natural Law foundations that your other paragraphs about "rights" in an 18th century way deny. You see law as arbitrary, they didn't.
I think you need to separate out interpretation from belief.
a) What did the founders believe
b) What is true
You can interpret the founders without agreeing with them. The founders believed in a concept of natural law, and one that was heavily ground in the post Elizabethan English political philosophy which emerged from thinkers like Locke, and the Scottish Reformed tradition. Certainly they believed that men should be naturally free and institutions like church and state conspired to create bondage. Many of those ideas have seeped into America's political culture.
You cannot on the one hand argue that one should ignore everything the founders wrote and examine the text of the constitution as nakedly as possible and on the other hand turn to their writings in another document entirely for "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" and then writings that are even less formal in what they meant by that clause. Either you interpret what they meant or you don't.
You are applying two different standards in your method of interpretation. One where you want to ignore context because it doesn't fit with your philosophy and in another embrace the context because you agree. Today's political culture has gone through all of modernism and into postmodernism. For example evolution, which was a core idea of the later Victorian Moralizers of the late 19th century plays a much larger role in our political science than it did for them. We talk about rights in terms that mostly ignore the idea of a natural law because we believe that most law is arbitrary. We've seen too many cultures that they hadn't to believe that any society would have similar laws.
No I'm not. One of the mechanism they put in place to make rebellion simple was avoiding the tyranny of a militia. They didn't have less of a belief in rebellion than current gun rights advocates, they had more of one. They wanted a government structurally incapable of oppression rather than the one you are advocating which is capable of repression but that would have a substantial terrorism problem because of so many civilian arms.
I don't agree with you. Their action was the right to keep and bear arms as part of a militia. They didn't consider the two as separable. That evolved much later.
I agree not a standing army. Read up the thread. That's what I'm arguing. As for the entire people, not quite. Colonial militias weren't that inclusive. They were a quasi-volunteer but with lots of pressure and financial incentive sort of situation. They weren't universal enlistment.
Exactly! The right was granted because they believed in militias.
They did say it explicitly. Multiple times both at the convention, before and after.
You are actually arguing against the entire theory of interpretation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...