alphas weren't much more expensive... if i remember right $800 got a 1.2 Ghtz bare bones system... about the same as a 433Mhtz with pentiums. got it... so the ignorant public just never UNDERSTOOD how good the alpha product was and that is the reason they didn't buy it.
So what you're saying is that no, you don't have any performance numbers that can remotely back up anything you've claimed?
you're an idiot.
if only microsoft had dedicated itself to a symbiotic relationship with alpha to cross optimize... wahhhhh wahhhhh.
perhaps one day you'll not be an idiot?
Classy.
"Wintel" won as a platform because it was common, cheap, fast (enough) and yes, because Microsoft was very important to the PC landscape! Look at other chips like PowerPCs and so on that had some great performance and energy qualities but were dominated by Intel chips and Microsoft OS/software.
Is it true that you're a notorious sockpuppeting troll? I don't think I've seen your name before.
my first hand experience as funded by the national science foundation says otherwise.
Well let's see some numbers then. My firsthand experience (admittedly not funded by NSF!!!) says you're dead wrong. Secondly, who exactly claimed that Alphas were cheap? They WERE more expensive, but also more powerful.
do you have any insight of your own to provide? why are we all not using alpha chips if they were so affordable and powerful?
That's true, however the key difference is visibility. Is it unfair that Microsoft is blamed for slowed down systems when it's vendors that install bundles of crapware from day one? Sure. Is it unfair that a bad experience with one Android device might sour somebody on other Android devices? I guess?
Additionally, here's a huge difference between a rendering engine that most people have never heard and is totally behind the scenes, and a highly marketed operating system and brand. Google is very much interested in the Android marketing and branding! Part of having a brand is that the good reflects positively and the bad reflects negatively, no matter whose "fault" it is.
I do happen to think that Android fragmentation is a net negative.
I'm not saying fragmentation isn't occurring. It has occurred. Because it has occurred its invalid to say that android has a problem updating its software, because its not androids problem.
Ok, I think we're in almost complete agreement then. As I said in my original post, some Android phones are going to have great support, some ok, some bad, and so on. Having an Android doesn't guarantee bad support, but neither does it guarantee good support! MY feeling is that -- like MS Windows -- Microsoft is going to get blamed, as the most visible party, for such issues, rather than HTC, Samsung, LG, etc. And thus the problem with fragmentation. There's the potential for bad experiences with one vendor to sour the entire platform.
And 3-year contracts are really common in Canada? I had never heard this before...
While I have plenty of issues with Apple as a company, I actually went with a 32GB iPhone 3GS. The fanboi comments are a bit misplaced.
Fair enough. Usually when people make comments like "One is quite enough" re: Apple, they come across as fanbois. My mistake for assuming.
Yep. But its really a question of each manufacturer, and has very little to do with "Android".
That's my point, comparing iOS to Android is a false comparison. Compare Apple to Motorola to HTC to Samsung to LG to whatever. Its the manufacturer that decides what support is going to be like, not the platform.
I think that's utterly irrelevant. Think about windows. Who sells PCs? Not Microsoft -- think Dell, Gateway, Acer, Asus, HP, Compaq, and so on. Who does the support? Well, it's a little bit more complicated, but basically the vendors and not Microsoft. Yet Windows/Microsoft is what has a horrible reputation. This is of course not directly analogous to Android, but if you think that crappy implementations -- or crappily supported implementations -- of Android are not going impact the popular opinion of Android, I would bet against you. Other than the two cathedral phone developers (RIM and Apple) people don't really seem to have very much loyalty to individual brands of phones. Personally, in the decade before I got an iPhone, I had a motorola, LG (x2), kyocera, and Samsung phones. I would say my experience of brand hopping was fairly typical. I think this is clearly changing now that smartphones and the platform-centric nature of cellphones are becoming predominant, but how many people are really going to be loyal to HTC-Android over Whoeverelse-Android? They're going to be loyal to Android (or iOS, RIM, etc), if anything!
The bottom line is this -- each vendor is responsible for supporting (modifying! etc) Android on their own. That's the very definition of fragmentation. You're absolutely right that it's up to the manufacturers to fight that, but as I already said (and as many others -- even Android fans on slashdot) support for some phones is going to be lacking. As more and more handsets come out running different revisions, I think the impact of fragmentation will get worse. The fact that you say "Its the manufacturers that decide" what Android is going to be like on their phones is rather telling!
My bet would be that google somehow intervenes to try to get manufacturers to keep up their end better.
And a few generations of iPod touch as well... and the iPads. Ok... so more like a total of 8 or 9 models... of ios device...
Oh you're right, that's true, I wasn't thinking about them since Android is only now starting to expand beyond cellphones. However, my point absolutely stands -- of the 9(?) devices/generations, almost all run the exact same version of iOS.
It was launched almost 4 years ago, it wasn't DISCONTINUED almost 4 years ago.)
Given most people had to sign a 3 year contract to get one there are lots of original models still in use. There are lots of original models STILL UNDER CONTRACT.
What country are you in that requires people to sign a 3 year contract?? God, I thought American cellphone contracts were bad, and I've never seen one go beyond 2 years.
I can't say for sure, not knowing what country you are in, but for the US (and I would assume the rest of the world) you are very incorrect that there are a "lots of original" models still out there. The original hasn't been sold in about 2.5 years, and given the AT&T contract length of 2 years (and there exceptions to allow people to upgrade early), there just aren't many original users left (not to mention the original hardware's lack of 3g and other limitations). I'm judging this off analytics of sites I work with and other articles I've read...if you've got data to the contrary, let's see it.
But the really silly thing is comparing Androids fragmentation to apple's going it alone with ios and concluding that the fragmentation is somehow a disadvantage. If each of 20 vendors write their own operating system from the ground up the way apple did, would that be somehow better??
As I very clearly stated (and you would have read/understood if you weren't clearly just a android fanboi) there are advantages and disadvantages to both system. In a way it's the cathedral and the bizarre. Android devices are NOT going to be supported (at least officially) the way iOS devices are. Some may be supported better, some may be able to be community supported, but you can bet a lot of handsets are going to be neglected not too long after release. I've seen this very complaint on slashdot even! In the end, I agree with Woz...I think Android probably will win.
Like I explicitly said in my previous post, with some Android phones you can lucky and keep the upgrade train rolling (either officially or community). With Apple they're going to keep the train rolling for awhile, but once it's done (ie, original iPhone) it's done.
Thank god we don't have 20 apples. One is quite enough.
Right, so we get you're a operating system fanboi...great.
Your description would naturally seem to be part of fragmentation.
If you have 20 vendors you can bet that some of them are going to be good about support, some are going to be ok, and some bad. If you have 50 android phones, you can bet some are going to be supported better than others. And so on. This, of course, has both positives and negatives, but it's absolutely part of being fragmented.
If google could rollout a patch to Android OSes that could be applied to any phone and any carrier instantly, then you couldn't call the situation fragmented. But Google can't do that...so...
Since iOS and Android seem about diametrically opposed on this front, you can compare that there are a total of 4 models of iPhone -- iPhone, iPhone 3g, iPhone 3gs, iPhone 4. When Apple releases an update to iOS (eg the new 4.2.1), it applies to all phones except the original iPhone (which is now just shy of 4 years old). This system too has pluses and minuses. When apple decides a phone isn't supported, it's done.
I don't understand your point -- to a game like Doom, what does plot matter? That's like berating Tetris for its lack of plot, or saying that the newest TD game just didn't motivate you, or that Minecraft lacked good characters. Ultimately, they're just games. Some games benefit from a great plot, some games do better with no plot at all!
Doom was a great game because it had good controls (for the time), great gameplay, humor, environment, and yes, great graphics for its time. You can't just boil that down and say that the only reason Doom "survived" (which is an absolutely ludicrous way to phrase it) is because of graphics. The graphics were very important, but there was so much more!
Remember Unreal? Remember Unreal Tournament? Which has been more successful? Which had a better plot? Counterstrike?
In my opinion graphics are no longer a selling point to a game. Every FPS out there can look amazing but can the plot really pull you in? Can that plot draw you to play the game a second time? Can that plot continue on into a sequel?
I agree and disagree with this. I would agree that there was a period of time when graphics were perhaps the foremost factor in desirability of games. It's a little less so now, but I think you're deluding yourself if you believe people don't look at games like Fallout or Dragon Age or whatever FPS of the day is popular and say "oh wow that looks amazing." Sure more games now have good graphics, and sure plot can be a large factor too (see Fallout and Dragon Age as examples), but it's more complicated than you make it out to be. Obviously, to some genres of FPS, plot is foremost. To others, it's just about the strategy and shooting things!
Really? You are that thick? You don't understand what constitutes a hate crime? I guess that must be true since you went and fished up that red herring yourself.
I think you're confused here. Attacking someone because of their political affiliation is indeed classified as a hate crime in a number of US states (Tennessee isn't one of them however) and countries across the world! California and DC for instance have hate crimes laws that cover this.
I'll add that I'm personally against all hate crime legislation.
What you are personally worried about means squat, you are not even close to an authority on civil liberties.
Sure, my opinion has zero relevance to you, just like your opinion has zero relevance to me. What does that say about either of our opinions and correlation to reality? Disrespecting another person's opinions isn't enough to mean they aren't right! Ad hominems and anger isn't enough to disprove an argument.
More bullshit, just because I refuse to accept your exaggeration does not mean I'm forgiving. But that's precisely the way an authoritarian would perceive it.
Which exaggeration is that?
Really? You are so thick that you need it spelled out that the constitution is what constrains the government so exceeding its boundaries is a constitutional issue?
I normally don't respond to ACs, and your post really shows why. Calm down, and read what you wrote. You don't answer one question, you don't introduce a single fact, and you don't advance the discussion in any way. You just insult, rant, swear, and avoid the issues. If you read a post like yours, you would say "Troll!"
I'm always happy to discuss such things (I wouldn't have posted in the first place if I didn't like the subject) but needless to say, if you can't find it in yourself to answer a single one of my questions or arguments, there's no point for this conversation to continue.
What kind of whackadoodle thinks a political party should be a protected group?
What does that have to do with the price of tomato in Des Moines?
The authoritarian personality type is strong in you.
Ah, the infamous Internet psychologist who pretends to be able to come to some deep understanding of people based on their flawed interpretations of quote snippets on anonymous internet forums. Nice.
That you can't see a meaningful difference between systemic abuse of government power
I used to work for the CIA. I quit because I hated the bureaucracy and I hated the government. Systematic abuse of government (ie the NSA wiretapping) is NOT anything that I'm worried about, no. If I had seen then or since ANY evidence that bad things were happening, I absolutely would care, but I haven't. Just what abuses are we talking about?
and a one-off by a kid who was a little too smart for his own good is quite telling.
Yet more forgiving the criminal due to his partisanship. What about his actions -- any of them -- was smart?
Neither Palin nor, presumably, any american citizen were hurt - but only one of those cases pushes up hard against, if not outright violates, constitutional protections.
Point taken, I agree that it wasn't right to do. But if he had broken into some random persons email would it have been a year sentence?
I honestly don't know, I doubt it. Had he breaken into some random person's email, this crime was investigated and he tried to destroy evidence (like the felony in this case) I HOPE he would get some punishment. I hope anybody that breaks into email (or any other kind of invasion of privacy like that) would get punished.
I guess you are right that if he had done a better job destroying evidence, things might have gone better, but given that a friend flipped on him at the trial and the university/proxy services etc log IPs, I think he was doomed from the beginning.
btw, I apologize if "wrong bout everything" came across as overly flip -- it was somewhat flip, but the "bout" was a typo, not a deliberate affectation.
edit: though when I checked Wikipedia on O'Keefe right now, it states:
The charges were later reduced to a misdemeanor of entering a federal building under false pretenses; entered with a guilty plea was a factual basis which found no "evidence that the defendants intended to commit any felony."
So the difference basically is that the testimony and evidence in the Kernell case led the court to a guilty felony, not so much in the O'Keefe. ~shrug~
Didn't say it did. But if you believe in the proportionality of justice, that the punishment should fit the crime, you can't deny that something is terribly wrong here.
Well, what do you think the punishment should be for breaking into an email account with malicious intent (could that be a hate crime?), downloading private data, changing the password, and then posting the info online, and lastly, attempting to destroy evidence (the felony here)?
What should the punishment be? As is, the guy has maybe a year at a halfway house. Yeah, it sucks, but he did some pretty maliciously bad things.
Perhaps. I happen to think that the systematic wiretapping of American telephones without warrant or court oversight is a bigger crime than this. Either prosecute them both, or prosecute no one. A world in which anyone is above the law frankly terrifies me. Unfortunately, that's the world in which we live.
Well, technically the NSA wiretapping targeted overseas communications, where the overseas end was a known or suspected terrorist/supporter. I'm not sure that qualifies as "systematic wiretapping of American telephones without warrant or oversight" but I get that you don't find it valid. If you hate that--a program that AFAIK has not been shown to have been used in any way against any American citizens?--you should hate what Kernell did too.
Nothing is 100%, the world isn't black and white, and nothing is perfect. Beyond obvious? Yes, of course. Is the government above the law? In many, many ways of course it is. The government can be scary as crap. I just don't see how you wander from Kernell's clear crime to shouting at Bush. Stick to your guns here, what's wrong is wrong, whether it's done by the government or the political left or the political right.
That part of the obstruction charge resulted from testimony that:
[Kernell] worried the FBI was on his trail and openly pondered the merits of reformatting his hard drive.
Furthermore, it seems as if material from Palin's account was deleted ("including deleting from the computer material gleaned from Palin's account") and then he took the steps you mentioned. Next, the guy had malware installed on his computer. I I don't think we're talking any computer expert here... it's interesting he even knew that defrag might do something. How many people just happen to delete files, uninstall a browser, delete cookies, and defrag? Coincidence? That plus the testimony that Kernell was trying to figure out how best to destroy evidence, seems to negate your point.
So basically, no, you're completely wrong about what the evidence is as far as I can tell.
I gotta disagree there. I don't think his intent was malicious at all - his goal was to expose corruption. He was clearly partisan in his motives, but if that's all it takes to legally qualify for "malicious intent" then all of congress should be in jail too.
I completely disagree. If you're just trying to be a good investigator / whistleblower, you DON'T change passwords and post them publicly online for anybody in the world to access. Heck, if his goal had really been to monitor for evidence of "corruption" he would have kept quiet about it and continued monitoring Palin's email. I don't buy your argument at all.
My understanding is that Palin only got away with it because the alaskan court ruled that the state law forbidding what she had done was too ambiguous. But the intent - keeping official government business communications on the record for accountability purposes - was clearly violated, even if the letter may not have been.
As I said in another post, two wrongs don't make a right, and 4 or 5 wrongs definitely don't.
He illegally accessed personal email (wrong) He changed the password (wrong) He posted the password online (wrong) He attempted to destroy evidence (wrong)
The fact that all four of those things are wrong is not changed at all by whatever Palin may or may not have done. Heck, had he just left it at the first three he would not have had a felony.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because one crime goes unpunished for some reason does not mean that another -- totally different -- crime is suddenly ok. I guess you and I just have totally different beliefs about the rights of Americans to privacy. Your world quite frankly scares me.
And like it or not, maliciously breaking into a famous person's email account in an attempt to harm that person is different from you doing it to a neighbor or what not. Sad, but true. People ARE punished for doing this, but as you said, it's harder to get investigations etc going when the case isn't as blatantly malicious (and self-publishing) as this one.
Lastly, he was not put in jail, nor would he have been sentenced at all probably had he not tried to destroy evidence and obstruct the investigation. Very different situations.
Try an experiment. Create a new account and make some stupidass post in the first remotely political article that is either anti-republican or anti-democrat. See what happens!
Really? His "only crime was his political alignment?" Do you actually believe that? I'm personally glad we have laws that make it punishable to access other peoples accounts and spread their private information without permission. Right to privacy and all that.
Incidentally I'm not sure if you're missing the details or not, but the felony was obstruction of justice -- attempting to hide and destroy evidence (and so on). Had he not done that, he would have been fine (well not fine, he was still hit with a misdemeanor, but less of a big deal than a felony!)
I haven't followed O'Keefe closely at all -- what did he do that warrants a felony?
Really? Breaking into someone's private email and then distributing what they found -- with clearly malicious intent -- is "such a small mistake" ?
Furthermore, when you say "He should have sent all the data he found to wiki leaks then burned his computer," that's exactly wrong! Had he not wiped his disk and tried (ineffectively!) to hide the evidence, he probably would have gotten substantially less punishment. In fact HIDING the evidence (obstruction of justice) is what got him the felony. The actual act was just a misdemeanor.
My main memory of being "cut off" back in the day was crossing the 200-hour threshold on dialup!:)
I remember downloading a leaked copy of beta Diablo 1. It was IIRC 81mb. My connection reset ever 12 hours, and I _barely_ was able to download it before the line dropped. How times have changed...
GP is guilty of generalizing, and you're guilty of providing an entirely anecdotal counter argument - "I've never personally witnessed what you're claiming, so it must never occur". It can, and it does. Whether or not that's standard operating procedures for most ISPs of today or the past is something else entirely.
Not quite, please reread what I wrote.
In fact I don't even remember ever hearing about this as a problem
Yeah, still technically anecodtal, but given that I've been reading slashdot for most of its existence, if ISPs shutting people down for alleged piracy (aka bandwidth usage) was a problem, you think I would have read about it here.
Secondly, I even went out of my way to say that the problem did not NEVER occur, just that it wasn't widespread. I'm sure that some ISPs certainly have shut down people for this reason, in the present as well as the past. But having used many of the biggest ISPs and early providers (Delphi, Launchpad, Mindspring, Earthlink, TWC, Verizon, Speakeasy, Cox, ATT) on various levels of service, I absolutely do think that's more than anecdotal. At which point does a list of ISPs I've had personal experience with become more than anecdotal for you?
So in short, I really don't get the point of your extremely pedantic post?
Slashdot Mirror
alphas weren't much more expensive... if i remember right $800 got a 1.2 Ghtz bare bones system... about the same as a 433Mhtz with pentiums.
got it... so the ignorant public just never UNDERSTOOD how good the alpha product was and that is the reason they didn't buy it.
So what you're saying is that no, you don't have any performance numbers that can remotely back up anything you've claimed?
you're an idiot.
if only microsoft had dedicated itself to a symbiotic relationship with alpha to cross optimize... wahhhhh wahhhhh.
perhaps one day you'll not be an idiot?
Classy.
"Wintel" won as a platform because it was common, cheap, fast (enough) and yes, because Microsoft was very important to the PC landscape! Look at other chips like PowerPCs and so on that had some great performance and energy qualities but were dominated by Intel chips and Microsoft OS/software.
Is it true that you're a notorious sockpuppeting troll? I don't think I've seen your name before.
my first hand experience as funded by the national science foundation says otherwise.
Well let's see some numbers then. My firsthand experience (admittedly not funded by NSF!!!) says you're dead wrong. Secondly, who exactly claimed that Alphas were cheap? They WERE more expensive, but also more powerful.
do you have any insight of your own to provide? why are we all not using alpha chips if they were so affordable and powerful?
Perhaps you've heard the term "Wintel" before?
That's true, however the key difference is visibility. Is it unfair that Microsoft is blamed for slowed down systems when it's vendors that install bundles of crapware from day one? Sure. Is it unfair that a bad experience with one Android device might sour somebody on other Android devices? I guess?
Additionally, here's a huge difference between a rendering engine that most people have never heard and is totally behind the scenes, and a highly marketed operating system and brand. Google is very much interested in the Android marketing and branding! Part of having a brand is that the good reflects positively and the bad reflects negatively, no matter whose "fault" it is.
I do happen to think that Android fragmentation is a net negative.
I'm not saying fragmentation isn't occurring. It has occurred. Because it has occurred its invalid to say that android has a problem updating its software, because its not androids problem.
Ok, I think we're in almost complete agreement then. As I said in my original post, some Android phones are going to have great support, some ok, some bad, and so on. Having an Android doesn't guarantee bad support, but neither does it guarantee good support! MY feeling is that -- like MS Windows -- Microsoft is going to get blamed, as the most visible party, for such issues, rather than HTC, Samsung, LG, etc. And thus the problem with fragmentation. There's the potential for bad experiences with one vendor to sour the entire platform.
Canada
And 3-year contracts are really common in Canada? I had never heard this before...
While I have plenty of issues with Apple as a company, I actually went with a 32GB iPhone 3GS. The fanboi comments are a bit misplaced.
Fair enough. Usually when people make comments like "One is quite enough" re: Apple, they come across as fanbois. My mistake for assuming.
Yep. But its really a question of each manufacturer, and has very little to do with "Android".
That's my point, comparing iOS to Android is a false comparison. Compare Apple to Motorola to HTC to Samsung to LG to whatever. Its the manufacturer that decides what support is going to be like, not the platform.
I think that's utterly irrelevant. Think about windows. Who sells PCs? Not Microsoft -- think Dell, Gateway, Acer, Asus, HP, Compaq, and so on. Who does the support? Well, it's a little bit more complicated, but basically the vendors and not Microsoft. Yet Windows/Microsoft is what has a horrible reputation. This is of course not directly analogous to Android, but if you think that crappy implementations -- or crappily supported implementations -- of Android are not going impact the popular opinion of Android, I would bet against you. Other than the two cathedral phone developers (RIM and Apple) people don't really seem to have very much loyalty to individual brands of phones. Personally, in the decade before I got an iPhone, I had a motorola, LG (x2), kyocera, and Samsung phones. I would say my experience of brand hopping was fairly typical. I think this is clearly changing now that smartphones and the platform-centric nature of cellphones are becoming predominant, but how many people are really going to be loyal to HTC-Android over Whoeverelse-Android? They're going to be loyal to Android (or iOS, RIM, etc), if anything!
The bottom line is this -- each vendor is responsible for supporting (modifying! etc) Android on their own. That's the very definition of fragmentation. You're absolutely right that it's up to the manufacturers to fight that, but as I already said (and as many others -- even Android fans on slashdot) support for some phones is going to be lacking. As more and more handsets come out running different revisions, I think the impact of fragmentation will get worse. The fact that you say "Its the manufacturers that decide" what Android is going to be like on their phones is rather telling!
My bet would be that google somehow intervenes to try to get manufacturers to keep up their end better.
And a few generations of iPod touch as well... and the iPads. Ok... so more like a total of 8 or 9 models... of ios device...
Oh you're right, that's true, I wasn't thinking about them since Android is only now starting to expand beyond cellphones. However, my point absolutely stands -- of the 9(?) devices/generations, almost all run the exact same version of iOS.
It was launched almost 4 years ago, it wasn't DISCONTINUED almost 4 years ago.)
Given most people had to sign a 3 year contract to get one there are lots of original models still in use. There are lots of original models STILL UNDER CONTRACT.
What country are you in that requires people to sign a 3 year contract?? God, I thought American cellphone contracts were bad, and I've never seen one go beyond 2 years.
I can't say for sure, not knowing what country you are in, but for the US (and I would assume the rest of the world) you are very incorrect that there are a "lots of original" models still out there. The original hasn't been sold in about 2.5 years, and given the AT&T contract length of 2 years (and there exceptions to allow people to upgrade early), there just aren't many original users left (not to mention the original hardware's lack of 3g and other limitations). I'm judging this off analytics of sites I work with and other articles I've read...if you've got data to the contrary, let's see it.
But the really silly thing is comparing Androids fragmentation to apple's going it alone with ios and concluding that the fragmentation is somehow a disadvantage. If each of 20 vendors write their own operating system from the ground up the way apple did, would that be somehow better??
As I very clearly stated (and you would have read/understood if you weren't clearly just a android fanboi) there are advantages and disadvantages to both system. In a way it's the cathedral and the bizarre. Android devices are NOT going to be supported (at least officially) the way iOS devices are. Some may be supported better, some may be able to be community supported, but you can bet a lot of handsets are going to be neglected not too long after release. I've seen this very complaint on slashdot even! In the end, I agree with Woz...I think Android probably will win.
Like I explicitly said in my previous post, with some Android phones you can lucky and keep the upgrade train rolling (either officially or community). With Apple they're going to keep the train rolling for awhile, but once it's done (ie, original iPhone) it's done.
Thank god we don't have 20 apples. One is quite enough.
Right, so we get you're a operating system fanboi...great.
Your description would naturally seem to be part of fragmentation.
If you have 20 vendors you can bet that some of them are going to be good about support, some are going to be ok, and some bad. If you have 50 android phones, you can bet some are going to be supported better than others. And so on. This, of course, has both positives and negatives, but it's absolutely part of being fragmented.
If google could rollout a patch to Android OSes that could be applied to any phone and any carrier instantly, then you couldn't call the situation fragmented. But Google can't do that...so...
Since iOS and Android seem about diametrically opposed on this front, you can compare that there are a total of 4 models of iPhone -- iPhone, iPhone 3g, iPhone 3gs, iPhone 4. When Apple releases an update to iOS (eg the new 4.2.1), it applies to all phones except the original iPhone (which is now just shy of 4 years old). This system too has pluses and minuses. When apple decides a phone isn't supported, it's done.
I don't understand your point -- to a game like Doom, what does plot matter? That's like berating Tetris for its lack of plot, or saying that the newest TD game just didn't motivate you, or that Minecraft lacked good characters. Ultimately, they're just games. Some games benefit from a great plot, some games do better with no plot at all!
Doom was a great game because it had good controls (for the time), great gameplay, humor, environment, and yes, great graphics for its time. You can't just boil that down and say that the only reason Doom "survived" (which is an absolutely ludicrous way to phrase it) is because of graphics. The graphics were very important, but there was so much more!
Remember Unreal? Remember Unreal Tournament? Which has been more successful? Which had a better plot? Counterstrike?
In my opinion graphics are no longer a selling point to a game. Every FPS out there can look amazing but can the plot really pull you in? Can that plot draw you to play the game a second time? Can that plot continue on into a sequel?
I agree and disagree with this. I would agree that there was a period of time when graphics were perhaps the foremost factor in desirability of games. It's a little less so now, but I think you're deluding yourself if you believe people don't look at games like Fallout or Dragon Age or whatever FPS of the day is popular and say "oh wow that looks amazing." Sure more games now have good graphics, and sure plot can be a large factor too (see Fallout and Dragon Age as examples), but it's more complicated than you make it out to be. Obviously, to some genres of FPS, plot is foremost. To others, it's just about the strategy and shooting things!
Is it really fair to say that the iPhone is a bit player?
Really? You are that thick? You don't understand what constitutes a hate crime? I guess that must be true since you went and fished up that red herring yourself.
I think you're confused here. Attacking someone because of their political affiliation is indeed classified as a hate crime in a number of US states (Tennessee isn't one of them however) and countries across the world! California and DC for instance have hate crimes laws that cover this.
I'll add that I'm personally against all hate crime legislation.
What you are personally worried about means squat, you are not even close to an authority on civil liberties.
Sure, my opinion has zero relevance to you, just like your opinion has zero relevance to me. What does that say about either of our opinions and correlation to reality? Disrespecting another person's opinions isn't enough to mean they aren't right! Ad hominems and anger isn't enough to disprove an argument.
More bullshit, just because I refuse to accept your exaggeration does not mean I'm forgiving. But that's precisely the way an authoritarian would perceive it.
Which exaggeration is that?
Really? You are so thick that you need it spelled out that the constitution is what constrains the government so exceeding its boundaries is a constitutional issue?
I normally don't respond to ACs, and your post really shows why. Calm down, and read what you wrote. You don't answer one question, you don't introduce a single fact, and you don't advance the discussion in any way. You just insult, rant, swear, and avoid the issues. If you read a post like yours, you would say "Troll!"
I'm always happy to discuss such things (I wouldn't have posted in the first place if I didn't like the subject) but needless to say, if you can't find it in yourself to answer a single one of my questions or arguments, there's no point for this conversation to continue.
What kind of whackadoodle thinks a political party should be a protected group?
What does that have to do with the price of tomato in Des Moines?
The authoritarian personality type is strong in you.
Ah, the infamous Internet psychologist who pretends to be able to come to some deep understanding of people based on their flawed interpretations of quote snippets on anonymous internet forums. Nice.
That you can't see a meaningful difference between systemic abuse of government power
I used to work for the CIA. I quit because I hated the bureaucracy and I hated the government. Systematic abuse of government (ie the NSA wiretapping) is NOT anything that I'm worried about, no. If I had seen then or since ANY evidence that bad things were happening, I absolutely would care, but I haven't. Just what abuses are we talking about?
and a one-off by a kid who was a little too smart for his own good is quite telling.
Yet more forgiving the criminal due to his partisanship. What about his actions -- any of them -- was smart?
Neither Palin nor, presumably, any american citizen were hurt - but only one of those cases pushes up hard against, if not outright violates, constitutional protections.
How so?
Point taken, I agree that it wasn't right to do. But if he had broken into some random persons email would it have been a year sentence?
I honestly don't know, I doubt it. Had he breaken into some random person's email, this crime was investigated and he tried to destroy evidence (like the felony in this case) I HOPE he would get some punishment. I hope anybody that breaks into email (or any other kind of invasion of privacy like that) would get punished.
I guess you are right that if he had done a better job destroying evidence, things might have gone better, but given that a friend flipped on him at the trial and the university/proxy services etc log IPs, I think he was doomed from the beginning.
btw, I apologize if "wrong bout everything" came across as overly flip -- it was somewhat flip, but the "bout" was a typo, not a deliberate affectation.
Hadn't read about that, that would do it!
edit: though when I checked Wikipedia on O'Keefe right now, it states:
So the difference basically is that the testimony and evidence in the Kernell case led the court to a guilty felony, not so much in the O'Keefe. ~shrug~
Didn't say it did. But if you believe in the proportionality of justice, that the punishment should fit the crime, you can't deny that something is terribly wrong here.
Well, what do you think the punishment should be for breaking into an email account with malicious intent (could that be a hate crime?), downloading private data, changing the password, and then posting the info online, and lastly, attempting to destroy evidence (the felony here)?
What should the punishment be? As is, the guy has maybe a year at a halfway house. Yeah, it sucks, but he did some pretty maliciously bad things.
Perhaps. I happen to think that the systematic wiretapping of American telephones without warrant or court oversight is a bigger crime than this. Either prosecute them both, or prosecute no one. A world in which anyone is above the law frankly terrifies me. Unfortunately, that's the world in which we live.
Well, technically the NSA wiretapping targeted overseas communications, where the overseas end was a known or suspected terrorist/supporter. I'm not sure that qualifies as "systematic wiretapping of American telephones without warrant or oversight" but I get that you don't find it valid. If you hate that--a program that AFAIK has not been shown to have been used in any way against any American citizens?--you should hate what Kernell did too.
Nothing is 100%, the world isn't black and white, and nothing is perfect. Beyond obvious? Yes, of course. Is the government above the law? In many, many ways of course it is. The government can be scary as crap. I just don't see how you wander from Kernell's clear crime to shouting at Bush. Stick to your guns here, what's wrong is wrong, whether it's done by the government or the political left or the political right.
I don't believe your post is very accurate. It's stated here:
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/apr/23/fbi-kernell-tried-to-destroy-proof-of-e-mail/
That part of the obstruction charge resulted from testimony that:
[Kernell] worried the FBI was on his trail and openly pondered the merits of reformatting his hard drive.
Furthermore, it seems as if material from Palin's account was deleted ("including deleting from the computer material gleaned from Palin's account") and then he took the steps you mentioned. Next, the guy had malware installed on his computer. I I don't think we're talking any computer expert here... it's interesting he even knew that defrag might do something. How many people just happen to delete files, uninstall a browser, delete cookies, and defrag? Coincidence? That plus the testimony that Kernell was trying to figure out how best to destroy evidence, seems to negate your point.
So basically, no, you're completely wrong about what the evidence is as far as I can tell.
~shrug~ it's worth an experiment surely.
I gotta disagree there. I don't think his intent was malicious at all - his goal was to expose corruption. He was clearly partisan in his motives, but if that's all it takes to legally qualify for "malicious intent" then all of congress should be in jail too.
I completely disagree. If you're just trying to be a good investigator / whistleblower, you DON'T change passwords and post them publicly online for anybody in the world to access. Heck, if his goal had really been to monitor for evidence of "corruption" he would have kept quiet about it and continued monitoring Palin's email. I don't buy your argument at all.
My understanding is that Palin only got away with it because the alaskan court ruled that the state law forbidding what she had done was too ambiguous. But the intent - keeping official government business communications on the record for accountability purposes - was clearly violated, even if the letter may not have been.
As I said in another post, two wrongs don't make a right, and 4 or 5 wrongs definitely don't.
He illegally accessed personal email (wrong)
He changed the password (wrong)
He posted the password online (wrong)
He attempted to destroy evidence (wrong)
The fact that all four of those things are wrong is not changed at all by whatever Palin may or may not have done. Heck, had he just left it at the first three he would not have had a felony.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because one crime goes unpunished for some reason does not mean that another -- totally different -- crime is suddenly ok. I guess you and I just have totally different beliefs about the rights of Americans to privacy. Your world quite frankly scares me.
And like it or not, maliciously breaking into a famous person's email account in an attempt to harm that person is different from you doing it to a neighbor or what not. Sad, but true. People ARE punished for doing this, but as you said, it's harder to get investigations etc going when the case isn't as blatantly malicious (and self-publishing) as this one.
Lastly, he was not put in jail, nor would he have been sentenced at all probably had he not tried to destroy evidence and obstruct the investigation. Very different situations.
It's possible on Slashdot, but less likely.
Try an experiment. Create a new account and make some stupidass post in the first remotely political article that is either anti-republican or anti-democrat. See what happens!
Really? His "only crime was his political alignment?" Do you actually believe that? I'm personally glad we have laws that make it punishable to access other peoples accounts and spread their private information without permission. Right to privacy and all that.
Incidentally I'm not sure if you're missing the details or not, but the felony was obstruction of justice -- attempting to hide and destroy evidence (and so on). Had he not done that, he would have been fine (well not fine, he was still hit with a misdemeanor, but less of a big deal than a felony!)
I haven't followed O'Keefe closely at all -- what did he do that warrants a felony?
Really? Breaking into someone's private email and then distributing what they found -- with clearly malicious intent -- is "such a small mistake" ?
Furthermore, when you say "He should have sent all the data he found to wiki leaks then burned his computer," that's exactly wrong! Had he not wiped his disk and tried (ineffectively!) to hide the evidence, he probably would have gotten substantially less punishment. In fact HIDING the evidence (obstruction of justice) is what got him the felony. The actual act was just a misdemeanor.
So in short, you're wrong bout everything!
Or, as the article says, he was sentenced:
by a judge who recommended that the time be served in a Knoxville, Tenn. halfway house
A little bit different!!
Ah yes, feature of NTFS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS_junction_point
My main memory of being "cut off" back in the day was crossing the 200-hour threshold on dialup! :)
I remember downloading a leaked copy of beta Diablo 1. It was IIRC 81mb. My connection reset ever 12 hours, and I _barely_ was able to download it before the line dropped. How times have changed...
GP is guilty of generalizing, and you're guilty of providing an entirely anecdotal counter argument - "I've never personally witnessed what you're claiming, so it must never occur". It can, and it does. Whether or not that's standard operating procedures for most ISPs of today or the past is something else entirely.
Not quite, please reread what I wrote.
In fact I don't even remember ever hearing about this as a problem
Yeah, still technically anecodtal, but given that I've been reading slashdot for most of its existence, if ISPs shutting people down for alleged piracy (aka bandwidth usage) was a problem, you think I would have read about it here.
Secondly, I even went out of my way to say that the problem did not NEVER occur, just that it wasn't widespread. I'm sure that some ISPs certainly have shut down people for this reason, in the present as well as the past. But having used many of the biggest ISPs and early providers (Delphi, Launchpad, Mindspring, Earthlink, TWC, Verizon, Speakeasy, Cox, ATT) on various levels of service, I absolutely do think that's more than anecdotal. At which point does a list of ISPs I've had personal experience with become more than anecdotal for you?
So in short, I really don't get the point of your extremely pedantic post?