1) Rev 1 products will always evolve. I don't think the current iPhone is the final product. 2) If there is one thing Apple can do is get "energy" and buzz about their product. 3) Apple still makes a profit on the unlocked phones. Not as much as with the activated phones, but it does not lose money. 4) Anyone can download code to their phone using the SDK. I wonder how long before someone makes a wrapper for the SDK that allows Joe Nondeveloper to download to the phone. 5) Why would I use the Apple SDK for a Nokia phone? A well written application will have an abstraction layer, and eventually you will see those show up on sourceforge (like wxWindows). 6) Why would Apple digest the worst? Expecting them to run any old application on their system, when they are accepting a percentage of the money for it, is silly. Some mechanism for non-commercial software ("free software") would be nice, but that would mean that Apple is trusting the experience to all the hacks out there. Let's face it, the vast majority of free software titles out there are incomplete and horrendously buggy. If Apple appeared to bless those packages by allowing them into the store, paying customers would be pissed.
If a human foot print is found next to a fossilized dinosaur bone, would that not prove that Evolution is wrong?
Let me know if that happens and it is not because some religious fraudster is trying to "prove" his point.
The thing is, you either BELIEVE that God created everything or you BELIEVE that evolution is the reason we are here or you BELIEVE something else. There is no way to truly scientifically prove how things began. Both intelligent design and evolution are religions.
One philosophy believes something because it is written in a book and that book is assumed to be the word of the Creator.
The other philosophy requires experimentation, modeling, and rigorous logic. Also, the scientific philosophy is open to criticism and revision as new things are learned.
We have a line which is "definitely alive" and a line that is "definitely not alive" but these lines DO NOT MEET"
Perhaps we should not expect a clearly defined line. Black and white thinking in a grey world will lead to frustration. Many of the opponents of evolution tend to want bold lines separating this from that and use the fact that there are no such lines as proof that evolution is wrong. In reality, it is the expectation that things fit into nice orderly charts and categories that is causing the problems, and often their respective faiths preach that the world falls into this paradigm. It should be no surprise that they have difficulty with fuzzy boundaries and uncertainty commonly encountered in science.
Alcohol is ridiculously cheap to produce. The price is set to maximize the profits of the distributor. Notice that for a given area, there is only one distributor for each brand. The distributors can lose their monopoly if the parent company finds out they are selling in a more expensive area (a rural LA parrish selling stuff in N'orleans).
A system like this would be trivially easy to interfere with. The system requires a bit of tuning to figure out what the area looks like before it can be used to track something. Throw a couple transmitters on some UAVs and you will really screw with the map, compromising the system.
This bunk is like the "Russians have GPS jammers! Zoikes! OMG, USA troops will be sitting ducks because they cannot move without GPS!!!!11!".
Turns out these systems need to be used in a coordinated fashion to be useful, as evidenced by the lack of impact of the GPS jammers on the battlefield. Coordination requires training, and nobody is training with these things.
Governments need not legislate, but rather simply direct their IT departments to require IPv6 from their service providers. They can use their purchasing power to stimulate change. The federal and a few state governments is all it would take to make this happen.
If they legislate it, then we would really be stuck with IPv6. Imagine trying to update to the next version, when there is a law on the books holding you back.
If my town had a mass transit system like Amsterdam, I might be able to manage using it.
This is the point of my comment. Our cities are not arranged to accommodate mass transit. They are laid out on the assumption that everyone is demanding point-to-point transportation. That is why houses in newly developed areas are 3+ miles from anything other than houses and commercial property is scattered all over the landscape. To make public transportation work in this situation is almost impossible. Since public transportation is impossible, all new developments are designed for the status quo.
Mass transit in Europe works much better because land more scarce, which has the effect of making high-density development more cost effective. The cities are also laid out to provide efficient commuter pathways. This is why European mass transit works.
So although you say you want more mass transit, you are unwilling to change your lifestyle to accommodate it.
I'm not suggesting that the solution is easy. But to demand that a public transportation system perform as good as a point-to-point system is rather silly. It is a self-defeating argument that ensures that nothing changes.
Well, if there was someone else that need to go EXACTLY where I want to go, EXACTLY when I want to go there and then also come back at EXACTLY the same time, then more likely than not there would be a mass transit option available for the same route.
Self-centered thought will lead nowhere.
1) You won't carpool because you want an absolute minimum commute time. 2) Property developers spread out industry and residence because they want the absolute maximum profit.
#1 leads to no demand for more cooperative arrangements (high density development with good mass transit) which encourages #2.
We will perpetuate this cycle until we start thinking about the overall best way to do things, instead of the individual best way to do things.
Even in a world without advertising, people would still crave the things they don't have, but their peers or role models do have. Advertisers do not make people feel their life is incomplete, people do that all by themselves.
I live quite nicely without a good many of the "must have" things out there. For the other things I do have, I made a decision to part with money for a particular feature. Other people will buy anything that is accompanied by a loud announcer, big breasted woman, and/or loud rock music.
But you never answered the question of "unavoidable media". The media is avoidable, and easily so. Media is only unavoidable to those who "must have" it.
Capitalism would expect companies to try to sell their products. It also expects the consumers to make appropriate decisions (to say "no"). This is where the problem is. Too many people are overwhelmed by peer pressure and cannot make good decisions. See also "herd mentality".
The problem is that Bob and Eve may not have the information either. They may be relying on others, who are relying on others, etc. This very quickly leads to a small number of people making an independent decision and everyone else following one of them. Who is the most popular of these independent decision makers will determine the outcome of the election instead of the most popular candidate.
This is the problem with the media and over reporting of the primaries. It plays on people's unconscious desire to support a winner.
There should be no "momentum" in an election. The fact that there is illustrates that a significant number of voters "follow the leader". This is not to say that people are _completely_ sheepish, but rather when faced with a decision, a significant part of that decision is what other people are doing.
But, I guess that is how all social animals behave.
Flash and Silverlight are not mutually exclusive. One does not interfere with the other. The clients are free and multiplatform. Joe Sixpack can run both at the same time on his computer (unlike an OS).
If Microsoft makes Silverlight a default installed component with the OS, like Wordpad, then what does that do? Now when the web development team sits down to design the website, they can choose which company's tools they want to use. How is this bad? As long as Microsoft is not breaking the Flash client, where is the damage?
The argument that people will not download the Flash client and will instead go to another company's website is dramatically overstated. Flash can be installed seconds, and clicking on a few buttons is not a significant barrier. People will still go to the Flash based website and they will simply download the client the first time. The link is right there in front of them. The effort on the part of the user to install Flash is minimal. Flash is not going anywhere, just like Java has hung around despite.Net.
In the past when we have considered which technology to use for a project, default client availability was low on the list (if it was there at all). More important were the technical limits and possibilities of the system. If the user had to download a widget to make it work, so be it. I have never heard a peep from QA or management about using a client that is installed by default on the most number of computers. As long as it was freely available and easy to install, that was our only concern.
It's about them leveraging an existing product to force the adoption of a new product.
How does Microsoft's use of one of their products translate into forcing other companies or websites to use it?
Because many people will have a client installed? Me having a flash client does not "force" any company to use flash. Instead it becomes another option.
Now, if they disabled some competing system when Silverlight is installed, then you're talking collusion. But there is no evidence of that here. This is not the conspiracy you are looking for.
Because this conflict was not to secure America, but to enrich the already-rich Americans with connections to politics.
I don't think it was started with this in mind, although those people did profiteer off of the war.
I believe this was a president, full of hubris, who thought that he could force democracy upon Iraq, and then use that as leverage to "solve" the middle east problem. He viewed himself as some great savior who would liberate them from dictators and be a celebrated hero (there is an interview of him stating this somewhere out there).
This war in Iraq was started for vanity, not profits.
Slashdot Mirror
Hidden houses are more likely to be robbed. The cover allows the robber more time to try to get in since he is not as worried about being spotted.
1) Rev 1 products will always evolve. I don't think the current iPhone is the final product.
2) If there is one thing Apple can do is get "energy" and buzz about their product.
3) Apple still makes a profit on the unlocked phones. Not as much as with the activated phones, but it does not lose money.
4) Anyone can download code to their phone using the SDK. I wonder how long before someone makes a wrapper for the SDK that allows Joe Nondeveloper to download to the phone.
5) Why would I use the Apple SDK for a Nokia phone? A well written application will have an abstraction layer, and eventually you will see those show up on sourceforge (like wxWindows).
6) Why would Apple digest the worst? Expecting them to run any old application on their system, when they are accepting a percentage of the money for it, is silly. Some mechanism for non-commercial software ("free software") would be nice, but that would mean that Apple is trusting the experience to all the hacks out there. Let's face it, the vast majority of free software titles out there are incomplete and horrendously buggy. If Apple appeared to bless those packages by allowing them into the store, paying customers would be pissed.
If a human foot print is found next to a fossilized dinosaur bone, would that not prove that Evolution is wrong?
Let me know if that happens and it is not because some religious fraudster is trying to "prove" his point.
The thing is, you either BELIEVE that God created everything or you BELIEVE that evolution is the reason we are here or you BELIEVE something else. There is no way to truly scientifically prove how things began. Both intelligent design and evolution are religions.
One philosophy believes something because it is written in a book and that book is assumed to be the word of the Creator.
The other philosophy requires experimentation, modeling, and rigorous logic. Also, the scientific philosophy is open to criticism and revision as new things are learned.
I know what philosophy I will choose to follow.
The bill can be killed by suggesting (to the devout) that this would shield Scientologist teachers from reprimand.
We have a line which is "definitely alive" and a line that is "definitely not alive" but these lines DO NOT MEET"
Perhaps we should not expect a clearly defined line. Black and white thinking in a grey world will lead to frustration. Many of the opponents of evolution tend to want bold lines separating this from that and use the fact that there are no such lines as proof that evolution is wrong. In reality, it is the expectation that things fit into nice orderly charts and categories that is causing the problems, and often their respective faiths preach that the world falls into this paradigm. It should be no surprise that they have difficulty with fuzzy boundaries and uncertainty commonly encountered in science.
Alcohol is ridiculously cheap to produce. The price is set to maximize the profits of the distributor. Notice that for a given area, there is only one distributor for each brand. The distributors can lose their monopoly if the parent company finds out they are selling in a more expensive area (a rural LA parrish selling stuff in N'orleans).
A system like this would be trivially easy to interfere with. The system requires a bit of tuning to figure out what the area looks like before it can be used to track something. Throw a couple transmitters on some UAVs and you will really screw with the map, compromising the system.
This bunk is like the "Russians have GPS jammers! Zoikes! OMG, USA troops will be sitting ducks because they cannot move without GPS!!!!11!".
Turns out these systems need to be used in a coordinated fashion to be useful, as evidenced by the lack of impact of the GPS jammers on the battlefield. Coordination requires training, and nobody is training with these things.
Governments need not legislate, but rather simply direct their IT departments to require IPv6 from their service providers. They can use their purchasing power to stimulate change. The federal and a few state governments is all it would take to make this happen.
If they legislate it, then we would really be stuck with IPv6. Imagine trying to update to the next version, when there is a law on the books holding you back.
Judging by your knee-jerk, I'd say your reflexes are fine.
Seriously, dotNet is just another environment, like Java or Gnome, except that it comes from *gasp* Microsoft.
Any technical reasons why you do not want dotNet on your Microsoft platform?
Microsoft will innovate. However, their innovation will be for the customer (phone companies) not for the user.
If my town had a mass transit system like Amsterdam, I might be able to manage using it.
This is the point of my comment. Our cities are not arranged to accommodate mass transit. They are laid out on the assumption that everyone is demanding point-to-point transportation. That is why houses in newly developed areas are 3+ miles from anything other than houses and commercial property is scattered all over the landscape. To make public transportation work in this situation is almost impossible. Since public transportation is impossible, all new developments are designed for the status quo.
Mass transit in Europe works much better because land more scarce, which has the effect of making high-density development more cost effective. The cities are also laid out to provide efficient commuter pathways. This is why European mass transit works.
So although you say you want more mass transit, you are unwilling to change your lifestyle to accommodate it.
I'm not suggesting that the solution is easy. But to demand that a public transportation system perform as good as a point-to-point system is rather silly. It is a self-defeating argument that ensures that nothing changes.
Well, if there was someone else that need to go EXACTLY where I
want to go, EXACTLY when I want to go there and then also come
back at EXACTLY the same time, then more likely than not there
would be a mass transit option available for the same route.
Self-centered thought will lead nowhere.
1) You won't carpool because you want an absolute minimum commute time.
2) Property developers spread out industry and residence because they want the absolute maximum profit.
#1 leads to no demand for more cooperative arrangements (high density development with good mass transit) which encourages #2.
We will perpetuate this cycle until we start thinking about the overall best way to do things, instead of the individual best way to do things.
You are assuming that they can make the comparison.
Even in a world without advertising, people would still crave the things they don't have, but their peers or role models do have. Advertisers do not make people feel their life is incomplete, people do that all by themselves.
I live quite nicely without a good many of the "must have" things out there. For the other things I do have, I made a decision to part with money for a particular feature. Other people will buy anything that is accompanied by a loud announcer, big breasted woman, and/or loud rock music.
But you never answered the question of "unavoidable media". The media is avoidable, and easily so. Media is only unavoidable to those who "must have" it.
Exactly what part of the media is "un-avoidable"?
Capitalism would expect companies to try to sell their products. It also expects the consumers to make appropriate decisions (to say "no"). This is where the problem is. Too many people are overwhelmed by peer pressure and cannot make good decisions. See also "herd mentality".
The problem is that Bob and Eve may not have the information either. They may be relying on others, who are relying on others, etc. This very quickly leads to a small number of people making an independent decision and everyone else following one of them. Who is the most popular of these independent decision makers will determine the outcome of the election instead of the most popular candidate.
This is the problem with the media and over reporting of the primaries. It plays on people's unconscious desire to support a winner.
There should be no "momentum" in an election. The fact that there is illustrates that a significant number of voters "follow the leader". This is not to say that people are _completely_ sheepish, but rather when faced with a decision, a significant part of that decision is what other people are doing.
But, I guess that is how all social animals behave.
Flash and Silverlight are not mutually exclusive. One does not interfere with the other. The clients are free and multiplatform. Joe Sixpack can run both at the same time on his computer (unlike an OS).
.Net.
If Microsoft makes Silverlight a default installed component with the OS, like Wordpad, then what does that do? Now when the web development team sits down to design the website, they can choose which company's tools they want to use. How is this bad? As long as Microsoft is not breaking the Flash client, where is the damage?
The argument that people will not download the Flash client and will instead go to another company's website is dramatically overstated. Flash can be installed seconds, and clicking on a few buttons is not a significant barrier. People will still go to the Flash based website and they will simply download the client the first time. The link is right there in front of them. The effort on the part of the user to install Flash is minimal. Flash is not going anywhere, just like Java has hung around despite
In the past when we have considered which technology to use for a project, default client availability was low on the list (if it was there at all). More important were the technical limits and possibilities of the system. If the user had to download a widget to make it work, so be it. I have never heard a peep from QA or management about using a client that is installed by default on the most number of computers. As long as it was freely available and easy to install, that was our only concern.
It's about them leveraging an existing product to force the adoption of a new product.
How does Microsoft's use of one of their products translate into forcing other companies or websites to use it?
Because many people will have a client installed? Me having a flash client does not "force" any company to use flash. Instead it becomes another option.
Now, if they disabled some competing system when Silverlight is installed, then you're talking collusion. But there is no evidence of that here. This is not the conspiracy you are looking for.
Since second is a base unit, we'd have to recalibrate every single timekeepinng instrument ever built.
Better to create a new unit and phase into that.
Because this conflict was not to secure America, but to enrich the already-rich Americans with connections to politics.
I don't think it was started with this in mind, although those people did profiteer off of the war.
I believe this was a president, full of hubris, who thought that he could force democracy upon Iraq, and then use that as leverage to "solve" the middle east problem. He viewed himself as some great savior who would liberate them from dictators and be a celebrated hero (there is an interview of him stating this somewhere out there).
This war in Iraq was started for vanity, not profits.
What would they trade for foodstuffs? And water. And oxygen. And any number of other things.
The nation's chief export will be zero gravity porn.
But they will have to get more attractive citizens.
I prefer the litigation services of Dewey, Cheatum, & Howe.
nyuk, nyuk
I already have a supercomputer on my desk, relative to the standards of 10-15 years ago.
I guess it would be a USB HID Output.