Free will is the idea that the decision you or I make are not pre-determined, NOT that they aren't affected by outside forces. Obviously we can be affected but that doesn't mean we are blind automatons simply put in motion by that which has happened before.
Also, if everything in the universe were predetermined and flowing inexorably from one step to the next with no hope of being anything different then the uncertainty principle could not exist.
You know what harmed the brand? Final Fantasy XI, XII, XIII AND XIV. Changing the basic formula of "you control a party and its actions in battles" and going with completely linear game play and odd online experiences killed Final Fantasy. X was the last game that embraced the Final Fantasy brand, since then its been throwing crap at the wall hoping it will stick. These games are Final Fantasy in name only, the magic, the SOUL is gone. Long gone.
Google's ability to tell you the truth? You have got to be kidding me. Google is more than willing to twist the "truth" to suit its purposes.
For example, Google modifies search results to put its services ahead of competitors, despite assurances to congress it would do no such thing. Google claimed they only decided to create Android to prevent us from a "dystopian" iPhone only future, despite the fact that they had been developing Android before the iPhone was released. Google claims to have not copied the iPhone or infringed on its patents, despite the interface for Android doing a complete 180 after they saw the iPhone. Google claims to be all about open and standards, yet it is propping up the 100% proprietary Flash format by including it in Chrome. Google claims to be all about open yet the one product where it makes all its money, Search, is completely closed source and proprietary. Google claims its against Chinese censorship but was more than willing to play along with Beijings rules until someone in the gov't tried to hack into their system. It wasn't noble principle, but self interest that promoted their withdrawal from China. Google claimed that they were accidentally recording and storing wifi data picked up via their street view vehicles, yet that data was intentionally throwing out encrypted data and only storing that which might be useful to them. Google's CEO sat on Apple's board for years, despite the fact that his company was secretly working on a competing product, all the while gathering information on his competitor.
Raw competition? You think that using profits from one division to prop up a free program in another division designed to undercut competitors completely on price is fair competition? (Google Search profits powering Google ability to give Android away for free). Because if you do Microsoft would like to remind you about Internet Explorer.
Google wants whats best for Google, and whats best for Google is continuing to use you and me, and our information, to sell more ads.
Google's opponents are looking to protect THEIR investments of time and money that Google is using illegally in some cases, they have a long history of doing what they want and asking for forgiveness later. If Google's opponents can't compete why is Bing gaining ground in search? Why are Android tablets selling worse than some of the biggest flops in video game history (the Nintendo VirtualBoy) while the iPad continues to sell like hotcakes? Why is the iPhone still the most profitable, liked device, gaining ground again on Android now that Verizon users actually have a choice? Google has had one major successful product, Search, and some success with services, followed by a litany of failures like Buzz and Wave. It's no wonder Google is spewing propaganda instead of challenging the patents in the courts. It knows its going to lose thats why.
You might want to read the article you link to before declaring so boldly that you know something. Actually the nave is the entire area of the church preceding the altar, not merely the central aisle, but also the pews and exterior aisles.
Next time you try and show off how clever you are you may want to make sure you are right first.
You may want to take some time to study your U.S. History yourself actually. The Constitution enumerates various powers and responsibilities of the various branches of government, it is not however an exhaustive list. The enumeration of powers was precisely why a number of the founding fathers believed that the Bill of Rights was necessary to provide protections for, and enumerate various essential rights of the citizens. The Constitution sans Bill of Rights, for example, would not guarantee freedom of religion or speech, these are not inherent in the body proper of the constitution.
As for "legislating from the bench", usually that is code for "made a ruling I disagree with". Judges can and in fact MUST interpret laws and apply them, and if you think judges are sitting there coming up with meaning out of nowhere just because they feel like it its clear you have never spent anytime in the legal system. There is far more to the law than what the judge feels like, a legal opinion is built upon precedent from previous cases and the general body of law beyond just the constitution. Laws, much like the constitution are seldom exhaustive and complete, how could they possibly anticipate all possible combinations and confluences of events? So there is a cycle. Congress creates a law, the President enacts the law, the Courts interpret the law. If there is disagreement with the interpretation there are two (non exclusionary) paths to take. One is to appeal the case to a higher court, the other is to pass a law which addresses the disagreement and clarifies any disagreement. Ultimately its even possible to amend the constitution to provide a new basis from which a law can be built.
The "Founders" were not some single monolithic entity with a single intent, there were a group of men of a variety of perspectives who argued, sometimes vehemently over the best approach to take, Federalists, Anti-Federlists, etc. They didn't HAVE one unified vision for the Constitution or the future of this country beyond broad strokes of well, not being British anymore. The Constitution + Bill of Rights was a compromise document incorporating the views of this diverse group. To act as if there was as single purpose and philosophy behind it is simply inaccurate.
You mean like video game consoles, computers, etc. which all charge you for extra games/software? You mean like a car where you have to pay for gas in order to keep it running? Or perhaps a gallon of milk which requires you to purchase another gallon after you've used it?
Apple sells you a device, after which you are free to do with it as you wish. However if you wish for it to continue to be supported then yes, you are more limited in what you can do. The difference between Apple and Sony is that Sony sold products with an advertised feature and then later removed that feature. Apple never sold an iPhone that was advertised to be easy to jailbreak or easy to side load apps on to. You know EXACTLY what you are getting when you buy from Apple, and if you don't like what they offer, you have many other choices. Thats not evil, its just commerce.
Um, no, "cell" refers to a group of people not their physical location. And whether or not they are 'script kiddies" they have been engaging in serious illegal activity in multiple countries affecting the privacy of thousands if not millions of people, so yeah I think the authorities are justified in treating them as significant and referring to them as such.
Right, because Android is completely original and didn't look like something completely different before the iPhone came out. Might want to do a little research next time before trolling.
First, I disagree with the RIAA's conclusion. However I also disagree with your analogy. It is illegal for me to steal from you, yet the fact that it is illegal doesn't mean you should leave your door unlocked. This proposal is more akin to adding extra locked doors to the building your apartment is in to prevent unauthorized or questionable people from getting in. Again I want to point out that I disagree with the RIAA's conclusion, but there is SOME logic involved, only a little.
Sure, if you take away the rounded corners, the black with aluminum bezel, the array of icons with four at the bottom on a dock, the fact that multiple icons on the Samsung phone use the same or incredibly similar coloring and iconography. Its about more than just the physical shape of the phone (althought thats part of it) and trade dress lawsuits are completely merited. The availability of devcies like the Droid or even the Nexus One that bear little to no physical and interface resemblence to the iPhone demonstrate it is not hard not to copy, Samsung absolutely copied the iPhone look and feel.
"WE CAN'T play online together because the matchmaking server was killed (because of Halo3 & Reach no doubt -- bet they'll eventually get killed to force migration to other new games too). "
No, they will eventually get killed because resources are not infinite and the cost of maintaining and supporting those servers to allow for continued game play is no longer worth the effort to the company. Considering how long Halo 2 multiplayer was supported, more than 6 years well into the release of the next game in the franchise, I'd say you got your money's worth out of it.
Its great when private servers are set up, but the idea that a company is screwing you over because they don't support online play indefinitely is absurd. Unless they advertised the multi-player feature would be available for a given amount of years and came up short, you knew what you were getting into.
Why should an end user be expected to be incredibly knowledge about the dangers (yes dangers) of the free Google marketplace in order to buy an Android powered phone? Clearly the marketing is not pushing out a message of "for experts only, be ware!" but "hey this is a great consumer phone for everyone!".
The reality is that in order to safely and effectively use Android the end user should be at least somewhat familiar with the territory, on that we agree, However Google is not positioning the device that way, and really thats not exactly a fair thing to expect of someone who is buying a consumer level device.
So don't read them and Slashdot will stop posting them. If people care alot about Apple then there will be more Apple stories. Plus Apple is making newsworthy announcements and decisions. The continued growth of its product bases, the success of its various platforms, continued high user satisfaction, stellar financial performance, industry leading products are all indications of a newsworthy company. Before Steve Jobs was hired back they were on the verge of collapse, now the company is worth more than MIcrosoft and Intel COMBINED. Clearly they are doing something, no lots of things right. That doesn't mean you have to go out and buy their products if you don't like them, you still have plenty of choices, but it would be stupid for slashdot to ignore such an influential and newsworthy company because some whiners don't like Apple for whatever childish reason.
Apple is a major tech company with impact in the marketplace, if you visit a tech site thats not specifically devote to a different platform you are going to hear a lot about them, if you don't like that I suggest you stop following tech and pick up a new hobby. I hear knitting can be quite relaxing.
Which isn't illegal. Microsoft, Nintendo AND Sony all have the same thing with their consoles and have had it for decades now. It's called an integrated solution. As long as its not the only one, there's no problem. If you don't like Apple's system you get an Android phone, or a WP7 phone, or a Blackberry.
Yeah, he's so greedy what with that $30 charge for Lion, and that $0 charge for iCloud. iPad is as cheap or cheaper than its competitors and iPhone is compeitively priced too, cheaper than many Android phones.
Of course Apple is going to try and make money, but where does the villain part come from? Because of the AppStore on iOS? Then I guess Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft are evil (not to mention Sega once upon a time) with their consoles. I guess Toyota is evil for not giving you the option to put a Ford engine in your car? Damn, making the product the way you like and letting the consumer choose if they want it or not is EVIL.
If you don't like Apple's approach thats fine, but calling it evil? You come across as nothing but a biased fanboy with talk of evil.
I don't have to hack my phone to get Netflix to work, why is my device somehow the "crippled" one. Lots of geeks like Android and thats fine, they like to tinker, but most people just want a device that works. You think customers are going to be happy when they buy their brand new Android phone and find out that half the apps they want to use don't work on it unless they do some arcane hacks to it? I don't. "Open' doesn't matter to most people and problems like this are why. They want a device that works. It's fine to prefer an Android device as long as you're willing to accept the tradeoffs but pretending they don't exist is just pig headed.
I don't care if Google wants to pursue the open and fragmented path or a more closed and cohesive one, but acting more closed while claiming to be open is B.S. yet Android/Google fans let them get away with it while railing against other companies that are atleast upfront about what there devices can and can't do.
For the record I do enjoy my device, alot, its one of the best things I've ever owned, and it lets me do what I want to without getting in the way or requiring extra effort. I think thats a good thing. So do most people.
Slashdot Mirror
Free will is the idea that the decision you or I make are not pre-determined, NOT that they aren't affected by outside forces. Obviously we can be affected but that doesn't mean we are blind automatons simply put in motion by that which has happened before.
Also, if everything in the universe were predetermined and flowing inexorably from one step to the next with no hope of being anything different then the uncertainty principle could not exist.
You win the internet sir. Bravo.
Man I wish I had mod points, I would mod this up so high.
Just like they all dropped the iPhone in favor of Android phones with limited flash support?
You know what harmed the brand? Final Fantasy XI, XII, XIII AND XIV. Changing the basic formula of "you control a party and its actions in battles" and going with completely linear game play and odd online experiences killed Final Fantasy. X was the last game that embraced the Final Fantasy brand, since then its been throwing crap at the wall hoping it will stick. These games are Final Fantasy in name only, the magic, the SOUL is gone. Long gone.
Google's ability to tell you the truth? You have got to be kidding me. Google is more than willing to twist the "truth" to suit its purposes.
For example, Google modifies search results to put its services ahead of competitors, despite assurances to congress it would do no such thing.
Google claimed they only decided to create Android to prevent us from a "dystopian" iPhone only future, despite the fact that they had been developing Android before the iPhone was released.
Google claims to have not copied the iPhone or infringed on its patents, despite the interface for Android doing a complete 180 after they saw the iPhone.
Google claims to be all about open and standards, yet it is propping up the 100% proprietary Flash format by including it in Chrome.
Google claims to be all about open yet the one product where it makes all its money, Search, is completely closed source and proprietary.
Google claims its against Chinese censorship but was more than willing to play along with Beijings rules until someone in the gov't tried to hack into their system. It wasn't noble principle, but self interest that promoted their withdrawal from China.
Google claimed that they were accidentally recording and storing wifi data picked up via their street view vehicles, yet that data was intentionally throwing out encrypted data and only storing that which might be useful to them.
Google's CEO sat on Apple's board for years, despite the fact that his company was secretly working on a competing product, all the while gathering information on his competitor.
Raw competition? You think that using profits from one division to prop up a free program in another division designed to undercut competitors completely on price is fair competition? (Google Search profits powering Google ability to give Android away for free). Because if you do Microsoft would like to remind you about Internet Explorer.
Google wants whats best for Google, and whats best for Google is continuing to use you and me, and our information, to sell more ads.
Google's opponents are looking to protect THEIR investments of time and money that Google is using illegally in some cases, they have a long history of doing what they want and asking for forgiveness later. If Google's opponents can't compete why is Bing gaining ground in search? Why are Android tablets selling worse than some of the biggest flops in video game history (the Nintendo VirtualBoy) while the iPad continues to sell like hotcakes? Why is the iPhone still the most profitable, liked device, gaining ground again on Android now that Verizon users actually have a choice? Google has had one major successful product, Search, and some success with services, followed by a litany of failures like Buzz and Wave. It's no wonder Google is spewing propaganda instead of challenging the patents in the courts. It knows its going to lose thats why.
You might want to read the article you link to before declaring so boldly that you know something. Actually the nave is the entire area of the church preceding the altar, not merely the central aisle, but also the pews and exterior aisles.
Next time you try and show off how clever you are you may want to make sure you are right first.
The Zip drive wasn't a replacement, merely a stop gap measure. It wasn't even standard, just an option.
You may want to take some time to study your U.S. History yourself actually. The Constitution enumerates various powers and responsibilities of the various branches of government, it is not however an exhaustive list. The enumeration of powers was precisely why a number of the founding fathers believed that the Bill of Rights was necessary to provide protections for, and enumerate various essential rights of the citizens. The Constitution sans Bill of Rights, for example, would not guarantee freedom of religion or speech, these are not inherent in the body proper of the constitution.
As for "legislating from the bench", usually that is code for "made a ruling I disagree with". Judges can and in fact MUST interpret laws and apply them, and if you think judges are sitting there coming up with meaning out of nowhere just because they feel like it its clear you have never spent anytime in the legal system. There is far more to the law than what the judge feels like, a legal opinion is built upon precedent from previous cases and the general body of law beyond just the constitution. Laws, much like the constitution are seldom exhaustive and complete, how could they possibly anticipate all possible combinations and confluences of events? So there is a cycle. Congress creates a law, the President enacts the law, the Courts interpret the law. If there is disagreement with the interpretation there are two (non exclusionary) paths to take. One is to appeal the case to a higher court, the other is to pass a law which addresses the disagreement and clarifies any disagreement. Ultimately its even possible to amend the constitution to provide a new basis from which a law can be built.
The "Founders" were not some single monolithic entity with a single intent, there were a group of men of a variety of perspectives who argued, sometimes vehemently over the best approach to take, Federalists, Anti-Federlists, etc. They didn't HAVE one unified vision for the Constitution or the future of this country beyond broad strokes of well, not being British anymore. The Constitution + Bill of Rights was a compromise document incorporating the views of this diverse group. To act as if there was as single purpose and philosophy behind it is simply inaccurate.
You can do whatever you want with your iPhone after you buy it, doesn't mean Apple has to support or help you do it.
You mean like video game consoles, computers, etc. which all charge you for extra games/software? You mean like a car where you have to pay for gas in order to keep it running? Or perhaps a gallon of milk which requires you to purchase another gallon after you've used it? Apple sells you a device, after which you are free to do with it as you wish. However if you wish for it to continue to be supported then yes, you are more limited in what you can do. The difference between Apple and Sony is that Sony sold products with an advertised feature and then later removed that feature. Apple never sold an iPhone that was advertised to be easy to jailbreak or easy to side load apps on to. You know EXACTLY what you are getting when you buy from Apple, and if you don't like what they offer, you have many other choices. Thats not evil, its just commerce.
Right, just a couple kids: http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2011/07/anonymous-vows-revenge-after-15-arrested-in-italy-antisec-hacks-continue.ars
*Standing ovation* Couldn't have said it better myself. Especially the part about that tool Doctorow.
Um, no, "cell" refers to a group of people not their physical location. And whether or not they are 'script kiddies" they have been engaging in serious illegal activity in multiple countries affecting the privacy of thousands if not millions of people, so yeah I think the authorities are justified in treating them as significant and referring to them as such.
Right, because Android is completely original and didn't look like something completely different before the iPhone came out. Might want to do a little research next time before trolling.
First, I disagree with the RIAA's conclusion. However I also disagree with your analogy. It is illegal for me to steal from you, yet the fact that it is illegal doesn't mean you should leave your door unlocked. This proposal is more akin to adding extra locked doors to the building your apartment is in to prevent unauthorized or questionable people from getting in. Again I want to point out that I disagree with the RIAA's conclusion, but there is SOME logic involved, only a little.
Sure, if you take away the rounded corners, the black with aluminum bezel, the array of icons with four at the bottom on a dock, the fact that multiple icons on the Samsung phone use the same or incredibly similar coloring and iconography. Its about more than just the physical shape of the phone (althought thats part of it) and trade dress lawsuits are completely merited. The availability of devcies like the Droid or even the Nexus One that bear little to no physical and interface resemblence to the iPhone demonstrate it is not hard not to copy, Samsung absolutely copied the iPhone look and feel.
"WE CAN'T play online together because the matchmaking server was killed (because of Halo3 & Reach no doubt -- bet they'll eventually get killed to force migration to other new games too). " No, they will eventually get killed because resources are not infinite and the cost of maintaining and supporting those servers to allow for continued game play is no longer worth the effort to the company. Considering how long Halo 2 multiplayer was supported, more than 6 years well into the release of the next game in the franchise, I'd say you got your money's worth out of it. Its great when private servers are set up, but the idea that a company is screwing you over because they don't support online play indefinitely is absurd. Unless they advertised the multi-player feature would be available for a given amount of years and came up short, you knew what you were getting into.
Why should an end user be expected to be incredibly knowledge about the dangers (yes dangers) of the free Google marketplace in order to buy an Android powered phone? Clearly the marketing is not pushing out a message of "for experts only, be ware!" but "hey this is a great consumer phone for everyone!". The reality is that in order to safely and effectively use Android the end user should be at least somewhat familiar with the territory, on that we agree, However Google is not positioning the device that way, and really thats not exactly a fair thing to expect of someone who is buying a consumer level device.
Actually it has been rising steadily this past decade. So yeah, you are completely wrong. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
So don't read them and Slashdot will stop posting them. If people care alot about Apple then there will be more Apple stories. Plus Apple is making newsworthy announcements and decisions. The continued growth of its product bases, the success of its various platforms, continued high user satisfaction, stellar financial performance, industry leading products are all indications of a newsworthy company. Before Steve Jobs was hired back they were on the verge of collapse, now the company is worth more than MIcrosoft and Intel COMBINED. Clearly they are doing something, no lots of things right. That doesn't mean you have to go out and buy their products if you don't like them, you still have plenty of choices, but it would be stupid for slashdot to ignore such an influential and newsworthy company because some whiners don't like Apple for whatever childish reason. Apple is a major tech company with impact in the marketplace, if you visit a tech site thats not specifically devote to a different platform you are going to hear a lot about them, if you don't like that I suggest you stop following tech and pick up a new hobby. I hear knitting can be quite relaxing.
Which isn't illegal. Microsoft, Nintendo AND Sony all have the same thing with their consoles and have had it for decades now. It's called an integrated solution. As long as its not the only one, there's no problem. If you don't like Apple's system you get an Android phone, or a WP7 phone, or a Blackberry.
Yeah, he's so greedy what with that $30 charge for Lion, and that $0 charge for iCloud. iPad is as cheap or cheaper than its competitors and iPhone is compeitively priced too, cheaper than many Android phones. Of course Apple is going to try and make money, but where does the villain part come from? Because of the AppStore on iOS? Then I guess Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft are evil (not to mention Sega once upon a time) with their consoles. I guess Toyota is evil for not giving you the option to put a Ford engine in your car? Damn, making the product the way you like and letting the consumer choose if they want it or not is EVIL. If you don't like Apple's approach thats fine, but calling it evil? You come across as nothing but a biased fanboy with talk of evil.
Microsoft didn't do anything here, they don't control Skype yet. But since when did accurate information get in the way of a good bias.
I don't care if Google wants to pursue the open and fragmented path or a more closed and cohesive one, but acting more closed while claiming to be open is B.S. yet Android/Google fans let them get away with it while railing against other companies that are atleast upfront about what there devices can and can't do.
For the record I do enjoy my device, alot, its one of the best things I've ever owned, and it lets me do what I want to without getting in the way or requiring extra effort. I think thats a good thing. So do most people.