So in that sense Apple does tell them what to do , through peer pressure : if you don't buy an Ipad/other Apple thing , you are not cool.
Exactly. Because if you don't follow along with the group think you'll get modded flamebait, troll, offtopic -- and then your karma will take a hit. Oh wait -- different organization -- my bad.
So, a law that is far more lenient than Federal Immigration Law, which not only requires that there be an initial contact based upon probable cause (as defined by the Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio), but then requires additional reasonable suspicion to even inquire about immigration status (which specifically states that it can't be based solely on country of origin AND that it has to be constitutional), and which can be handled with any form of government issued ID (i.e. driver's license, state ID, passport, etc.), is a bigger threat than current Federal Immigration Law. Sure. That all makes sense.
I think it's laughable that I bring facts to the table -- you bring conjecture to the table -- and you accuse me of hand waving. Project much?
The price you have to pay if you don't masturbate with rest of the apple fanbois on/. - I have been serial-down-modded so many times...
You're just circling the wagons so no one will suspect that you've actually been masturbating with the rest of the apple fanbois. You guys pony up for some iLotion?
Well, this started out as what I thought would be obvious humor (GURU Meditation errors) in response to having the "real" Amiga experience. I honestly assumed I was going to get either a "funny" mod, or else someone would have told me to install GOMF (currently definition 2) to counteract the facetious app.
It would seem that you thought I was attacking you. Honestly, I was just being what I thought was funny. I probably shouldn't have carried it so far, but when it comes down to it, €111 is a ridiculous amount of money to pay just to run some Amiga software on my old Quadra. So I carried it on far too long.
I've programmed on the PET series, the VIC-20, the C-64, and various Amigas. The Amiga was, by far, the best of the bunch. I suppose I could go dig up details, but I as I recall Jack Tramiel from Atari was responsible for the awesome hardware set that the 68k Amiga had at the time. Unfortunately, the software sucked rocks. Not because they had the wrong idea, but because they had a piss poor implementation. As urban legend would have it, the company that was hired to build the Workbench (or was it Kickstart?) actually lost the source code and they were stuck with the binary for far too long. And Jack, sadly, didn't pony up for an MMU in the design. Hence the ubiquitous GURU Meditation errors. However, that aside, the interleaved access to memory via the 68k and the Blitter, as well as having a graphics coprocessor (the Copper) to coordinate the show, made the Amiga a joy to program for. I had a great time. I programmed in a a lot of assembler. I was an early adopter of QuickBasic. I even experimented with Forth (notwithstanding Tony Farmer's review of it for the Amiga claiming that Forth was the "...Porsche of languages amongst Fords and Chevys...")
However, time goes by. I already have Unix (OS X) on my current PPC Macs. And my old PPC Macs, while having the option of MacOS (not my favorite system), can still run Linux if I want. I just don't see the point in shelling out $132 USD for a nostalgic experience. Particularly when my best memories were back in the 68k days.
None of what you've said has anything to do with Arizona.
Read the bill. The OP made an ignorant comment implying that Arizona SB-1070h (House Engrossed) has something to do with looking Latino. You've furthered that ignorance by giving out misinformation in regard to identity. To be honest, it took me a while to figure out why everyone was so riled up about this. As it turns out, the people inciting the masses were pointing to a draft bill, Arizona SB-1070s (Senate Engrossed). Further evidence of that is given by simply googling SB-1070. You won't find the actual bill -- you'll just find the draft bill. The draft bill was an egregious violation of anything anyone, other than perhaps a Latino dictator, might want to think of as civil liberties. I would tag it "POS". As such, it wasn't passed into law. The House version of the bill did pass. It had extension revisions to ensure that Gestapo tactics weren't being passed into law. Since then, it has had additional revisions to clarify "legal contact" because people weren't satisfied that the Supreme Court's decisions regarding "Terry Stops" were being spelled out. Well, that's probably not true: in all likelihood, they hadn't read the correct bill, but I digress. The main point is that any ambiguity was (hopefully) clarified.
Again. Read the bill. ANY government issued identification is proof of citizenship in the eyes of Arizona. Don't mix the US Federal Government in with this -- they're the ones with the onerous requirements. If you want to criticize, put it where it belongs: the Federal Government. Attacking Arizona for having a more lenient law than the Feds is silly.
Finally, if after having read the actual bill, you're still not convinced, consider this: the Obama administration is fighting Arizona on two fronts.
They're challenging Arizona's ability to prevent employers from hiring illegals. This law was signed by the current Secretary of Homeland Security. Yes, I know. It's an "untrusted source" in these parts (the evil Fox News), but find a link telling me they aren't challenging the law before you bitch about the source.
Now, where in the Obama Administration's attacks does the Bill of Rights appear? Answer: nowhere. That's pretty much the proof in the pudding. If the law had any conflict with the Bill of Rights, they'd be all over it. It would be the easy path. Instead, they "acted stupidly" by reacting to this without any facts and, in the light of day, are finding any path they can to attack, regardless of how thin that path may be.
That's the Border Patrol and has absolutely zero to do with Arizona. Blame the Federal Government for that. Those aren't cops. In fact, they don't patrol traffic for speed. But nice try.
It comes with a real Copper and a real Blitter to code to? Awesome. That's a pretty good deal then. They're pretty much the only thing I really miss about my Amiga. Where do they plug in?
Having Amiga-like experience. Is that so hard to guess?...
Wouldn't it be simpler and cheaper to just install an app that pops up a GURU Meditation error randomly and then fools you into thinking you can recover from it before forcing you to reboot the system?
I get your point. Really, I do. However, it's just not the same thing. If you called a company for customer service, they put you on hold with live radio music, and there were advertisements on the radio, would you demand a credit? If you sent a text to someone and they texted you back with an ad, would you demand a credit? Well, perhaps you would.
What I'm getting at is that, in the case of the website, you're pulling the data. You have full control over the fact that you've chosen to go to a website that may have advertising. The website most certainly didn't push a bunch of data to you without an initial request by you. You have solicited data from them, even if you don't necessarily like the data you've gotten. The analogies you used are 100% unsolicited. There really is a difference.
However, there must be some reasonable way to get this to work. I'm unclear on what it might be, but you've at least gotten me pondering it.
Prototypes are fun and all, but let's see the numbers once it has customers lined up and has gone through FAA certification. That's a bit like coming up with a car that gets 175MPG (of actual gasoline or diesel, not "gallons" of electricity) -- until you've gotten it past the EPA and the DOT and can still sell the thing to more than the wealthy toy market, it's just a show car.
Believe it or not, they actually have one or two smart people working at Boeing & Airbus (possibly one at each) and it's not like they're in bed with BIG OIL!!!! or whatever other tinfoil hatted fantasy people like to believe in this week.
And, in regard to some other post here, I seem to recall winglets being there to break up parasitic drag from vortices spewing off of the wing tips. But that's just my recollection from working on MD-11 (software, not mechanical design, so take that for what it's worth). They're fairly common now.
You'd have the same problem with any unactivated device. In fact, what if you had bought a netbook (sans CD/DVD) without an operating system because you were planning on installing Linux? How could you do that without some other computing device? Oh no - Linux is narrow and netbooks suck! Would that be a reasonable conclusion?
Really, I'm not even sure how we went from the usefulness of an iPad as a mobile (cloud?) computing platform, to the usefulness of an iPad as an exclusive computing platform, to the usefulness of an unactivated iPad while marooned on a desert island.
I would have bought an iPad at release because it would have been really useful for me during the Spring semester, but it came too late into the year. I'll hold off until this Fall to get one. At the moment, I rely pretty heavily on my iPhone for most of my mobile needs, and it would be awesome if I could a) have a bigger screen and b) do presentations from it. The iPad covers that for me while still being significantly more compact than my laptop. At the moment, I don't see giving up the laptop completely, although I could imagine that might eventually happen. As it is, I rarely use any of my desktops anymore.
When Apple provided software updates for the iPhone that caused jailbreak problems to those owners choosing to accept said updates, I seem to recall that being labeled as "bricked." So, for consistency, shouldn't this at least read:
Since when does "heavy hitter" mean nothing more than "really rich guy?" If we're talking tech, then I can see Gates as a heavy hitter, even if he seems to be more experienced in the hitting department than the technical department. But just because he's dripping a tiny amount of money on something, that makes him a heavy hitter in whatever he happens to mess around with?
I'll bet he's spent more money on a single car than he's spending on this, but few would call him a heavy hitter in the automotive world. Big spender, yes. Heavy hitter, no.
I may have also come at this from a different perspective than a lot of the posters here. I had already seen the story and completely glossed past the iPad/XBox, etc. references. I can see that on/. that would be more likely to be the focus. I was much more focused on his implication that certain sources shouldn't be trusted. In this case, certain sources that happen to disagree with him. And given his history of aggressively attacking venues that criticize him, I found his comments "troubling" (to quote the President).
I hope you're right. Perhaps we are increasing the amount of critical thinking being taught in Universities to the point that the students could see past the spin and only take the valuable parts of the speech home with them.
Jack Ellis, the superintendent for Brazos Independent School District, declined an on-camera interview. But he said the school was abiding by a state guideline that banned "minimal nutrition" foods. "Whether or not I agree with the guidelines, we have to follow the rules," he said.
and
Brazos Elementary Principal Jeanne Young, said the problem, in this instance, was that the candy was provided by another student - not the girl's parents.
What Obama is saying, is that in this day and age of massive media coverage you shouldn't always believe what you read.
The point that I think you're missing, and the point that I saw a lot of these "spouting" posts make, is that President Obama doesn't appear to realize that the media was less trustworthy prior to there being a lot of alternatives. In the past, many people only had one source for their non-local print news: AP feeds regurgitated in their local newspapers. There were at most 4 television networks (only three of which people relied upon for national news broadcasts) which also frequently sourced the same material. So, in many ways, there was absolutely no redundancy in the system. This was a single-point-of-failure system, therefore it was prone to massive failure. From that standpoint, it was far less reliable.
Granted, the newer system certainly has more noise in it, so we're actually required to think rather than being told what to think. I see that as a good thing. But the probability of completely false information being propagated and accepted as the truth is slowly diminishing as more people become trained to be skeptical. Perhaps this was exactly what the President was trying to point out, however, the AFP article says this:
He bemoaned the fact that "some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction," in the clamor of certain blogs and talk radio outlets. "All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy."
Now, is the AFP article wrong? Or did the President specifically target "certain" blogs and talk radio? Given his attempts to control and censor talk radio (and, to be honest, I'm surprised as hell he didn't pop a Fox News reference in there, given his obsession with them), I'd say it's likely to be an accurate paraphrase. However I can't be sure due to the dearth of alternate original sources for this material. Thus a lack of information could be the issue here.
The current controversy that's a fine example of the dangers of not thinking critically and of trusting mainstream sources is the AZ illegal alien enforcement bill. I have yet to find a single mainstream source that has read the correct bill. And googling for the actual bill didn't, until recently, return any results to the correct bill (likely due to all the links to the wrong bill). And so, here we have an instance of "some of the craziest claims" quickly gaining traction due to reliance on the "trusted" sources. The best way to educated yourself about this bill is to go to the AZ Legislature for SB 1070. However, that's going to require reading and thinking, which most people aren't going to bother doing. I have yet to see any of these wonderfully trustworthy sources address huge sections of their time and space to retracting their mistake nor attempting to educate people about the error of their previous assertions. And, given that this misinformation and subsequent spooling up of the populace was originated and propagated by the mainstream media, the lack of alternate information sources would most assuredly have resulted in nearly 100% of the population being uneducated about the realities of this bill in the past -- prior to the current information explosion.
So, in summary, I think you're partially right: you shouldn't always believe what you read. However, where I disagree is in the implication that this is a recent phenomenon, and in the President's implication that it's an issue with "certain" blogs and talk radio. The information age has finally given us the ability to ferret out credible sources on our own, which I think scares politicians.
For a minute there I thought I was in AV and some kid that had spent the last year leveling his first 55 had just gotten his DK to 60 and immediately jumped into bg to show us noobs/nubs how it's done. Well it used to be 60 anyway. I suppose 59 is correct now.
(I was also confused by the reference to this 'forum' of which he speaks. Then again, those Slavic guys with mono or whatever it was had already strained my tiny brain.)
Slashdot Mirror
Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother... sister, sorry.
Exactly. Because if you don't follow along with the group think you'll get modded flamebait, troll, offtopic -- and then your karma will take a hit. Oh wait -- different organization -- my bad.
So, a law that is far more lenient than Federal Immigration Law, which not only requires that there be an initial contact based upon probable cause (as defined by the Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio), but then requires additional reasonable suspicion to even inquire about immigration status (which specifically states that it can't be based solely on country of origin AND that it has to be constitutional), and which can be handled with any form of government issued ID (i.e. driver's license, state ID, passport, etc.), is a bigger threat than current Federal Immigration Law. Sure. That all makes sense.
I think it's laughable that I bring facts to the table -- you bring conjecture to the table -- and you accuse me of hand waving. Project much?
You're just circling the wagons so no one will suspect that you've actually been masturbating with the rest of the apple fanbois. You guys pony up for some iLotion?
I was I had mod points. That was hilarious!
Actually, I had no opinion one way or another about your particular sense of humor. Until this last post. Really. Lighten up Frances.
Well, this started out as what I thought would be obvious humor (GURU Meditation errors) in response to having the "real" Amiga experience. I honestly assumed I was going to get either a "funny" mod, or else someone would have told me to install GOMF (currently definition 2) to counteract the facetious app.
It would seem that you thought I was attacking you. Honestly, I was just being what I thought was funny. I probably shouldn't have carried it so far, but when it comes down to it, €111 is a ridiculous amount of money to pay just to run some Amiga software on my old Quadra. So I carried it on far too long.
I've programmed on the PET series, the VIC-20, the C-64, and various Amigas. The Amiga was, by far, the best of the bunch. I suppose I could go dig up details, but I as I recall Jack Tramiel from Atari was responsible for the awesome hardware set that the 68k Amiga had at the time. Unfortunately, the software sucked rocks. Not because they had the wrong idea, but because they had a piss poor implementation. As urban legend would have it, the company that was hired to build the Workbench (or was it Kickstart?) actually lost the source code and they were stuck with the binary for far too long. And Jack, sadly, didn't pony up for an MMU in the design. Hence the ubiquitous GURU Meditation errors. However, that aside, the interleaved access to memory via the 68k and the Blitter, as well as having a graphics coprocessor (the Copper) to coordinate the show, made the Amiga a joy to program for. I had a great time. I programmed in a a lot of assembler. I was an early adopter of QuickBasic. I even experimented with Forth (notwithstanding Tony Farmer's review of it for the Amiga claiming that Forth was the "...Porsche of languages amongst Fords and Chevys...")
However, time goes by. I already have Unix (OS X) on my current PPC Macs. And my old PPC Macs, while having the option of MacOS (not my favorite system), can still run Linux if I want. I just don't see the point in shelling out $132 USD for a nostalgic experience. Particularly when my best memories were back in the 68k days.
So, to summarize: peace, love, and rockets.
None of what you've said has anything to do with Arizona.
Read the bill. The OP made an ignorant comment implying that Arizona SB-1070h (House Engrossed) has something to do with looking Latino. You've furthered that ignorance by giving out misinformation in regard to identity. To be honest, it took me a while to figure out why everyone was so riled up about this. As it turns out, the people inciting the masses were pointing to a draft bill, Arizona SB-1070s (Senate Engrossed). Further evidence of that is given by simply googling SB-1070. You won't find the actual bill -- you'll just find the draft bill. The draft bill was an egregious violation of anything anyone, other than perhaps a Latino dictator, might want to think of as civil liberties. I would tag it "POS". As such, it wasn't passed into law. The House version of the bill did pass. It had extension revisions to ensure that Gestapo tactics weren't being passed into law. Since then, it has had additional revisions to clarify "legal contact" because people weren't satisfied that the Supreme Court's decisions regarding "Terry Stops" were being spelled out. Well, that's probably not true: in all likelihood, they hadn't read the correct bill, but I digress. The main point is that any ambiguity was (hopefully) clarified.
Again. Read the bill. ANY government issued identification is proof of citizenship in the eyes of Arizona. Don't mix the US Federal Government in with this -- they're the ones with the onerous requirements. If you want to criticize, put it where it belongs: the Federal Government. Attacking Arizona for having a more lenient law than the Feds is silly.
Finally, if after having read the actual bill, you're still not convinced, consider this: the Obama administration is fighting Arizona on two fronts.
Now, where in the Obama Administration's attacks does the Bill of Rights appear? Answer: nowhere. That's pretty much the proof in the pudding. If the law had any conflict with the Bill of Rights, they'd be all over it. It would be the easy path. Instead, they "acted stupidly" by reacting to this without any facts and, in the light of day, are finding any path they can to attack, regardless of how thin that path may be.
You'd think that on /., pointing out the truth (AKA verifiable facts) wouldn't get you modded flamebait. Yes, I know: "Are you new here?"
That's the Border Patrol and has absolutely zero to do with Arizona. Blame the Federal Government for that. Those aren't cops. In fact, they don't patrol traffic for speed. But nice try.
So no. Not the Real Experience (TM). And still 111 Euro. That's a bummer.
FTFY
It comes with a real Copper and a real Blitter to code to? Awesome. That's a pretty good deal then. They're pretty much the only thing I really miss about my Amiga. Where do they plug in?
Ah... so the 111 Euro is all for the sake of the illusion.
Wouldn't it be simpler and cheaper to just install an app that pops up a GURU Meditation error randomly and then fools you into thinking you can recover from it before forcing you to reboot the system?
I get your point. Really, I do. However, it's just not the same thing. If you called a company for customer service, they put you on hold with live radio music, and there were advertisements on the radio, would you demand a credit? If you sent a text to someone and they texted you back with an ad, would you demand a credit? Well, perhaps you would.
What I'm getting at is that, in the case of the website, you're pulling the data. You have full control over the fact that you've chosen to go to a website that may have advertising. The website most certainly didn't push a bunch of data to you without an initial request by you. You have solicited data from them, even if you don't necessarily like the data you've gotten. The analogies you used are 100% unsolicited. There really is a difference.
However, there must be some reasonable way to get this to work. I'm unclear on what it might be, but you've at least gotten me pondering it.
Prototypes are fun and all, but let's see the numbers once it has customers lined up and has gone through FAA certification. That's a bit like coming up with a car that gets 175MPG (of actual gasoline or diesel, not "gallons" of electricity) -- until you've gotten it past the EPA and the DOT and can still sell the thing to more than the wealthy toy market, it's just a show car.
Believe it or not, they actually have one or two smart people working at Boeing & Airbus (possibly one at each) and it's not like they're in bed with BIG OIL!!!! or whatever other tinfoil hatted fantasy people like to believe in this week.
And, in regard to some other post here, I seem to recall winglets being there to break up parasitic drag from vortices spewing off of the wing tips. But that's just my recollection from working on MD-11 (software, not mechanical design, so take that for what it's worth). They're fairly common now.
You'd have the same problem with any unactivated device. In fact, what if you had bought a netbook (sans CD/DVD) without an operating system because you were planning on installing Linux? How could you do that without some other computing device? Oh no - Linux is narrow and netbooks suck! Would that be a reasonable conclusion?
Really, I'm not even sure how we went from the usefulness of an iPad as a mobile (cloud?) computing platform, to the usefulness of an iPad as an exclusive computing platform, to the usefulness of an unactivated iPad while marooned on a desert island.
I would have bought an iPad at release because it would have been really useful for me during the Spring semester, but it came too late into the year. I'll hold off until this Fall to get one. At the moment, I rely pretty heavily on my iPhone for most of my mobile needs, and it would be awesome if I could a) have a bigger screen and b) do presentations from it. The iPad covers that for me while still being significantly more compact than my laptop. At the moment, I don't see giving up the laptop completely, although I could imagine that might eventually happen. As it is, I rarely use any of my desktops anymore.
So you're saying you never got sued by the RIAA nor sold a pre-release iPhone?
When Apple provided software updates for the iPhone that caused jailbreak problems to those owners choosing to accept said updates, I seem to recall that being labeled as "bricked." So, for consistency, shouldn't this at least read:
Google Bricks Scroogle
Since when does "heavy hitter" mean nothing more than "really rich guy?" If we're talking tech, then I can see Gates as a heavy hitter, even if he seems to be more experienced in the hitting department than the technical department. But just because he's dripping a tiny amount of money on something, that makes him a heavy hitter in whatever he happens to mess around with?
I'll bet he's spent more money on a single car than he's spending on this, but few would call him a heavy hitter in the automotive world. Big spender, yes. Heavy hitter, no.
See -- I managed to attach a car analogy.
I may have also come at this from a different perspective than a lot of the posters here. I had already seen the story and completely glossed past the iPad/XBox, etc. references. I can see that on /. that would be more likely to be the focus. I was much more focused on his implication that certain sources shouldn't be trusted. In this case, certain sources that happen to disagree with him. And given his history of aggressively attacking venues that criticize him, I found his comments "troubling" (to quote the President).
I hope you're right. Perhaps we are increasing the amount of critical thinking being taught in Universities to the point that the students could see past the spin and only take the valuable parts of the speech home with them.
That's not the story they were telling the week before:
http://www.khou.com/news/Candy-Gets-Third-Grader-A-Weeks-Detention-93033319.html
and
The point that I think you're missing, and the point that I saw a lot of these "spouting" posts make, is that President Obama doesn't appear to realize that the media was less trustworthy prior to there being a lot of alternatives. In the past, many people only had one source for their non-local print news: AP feeds regurgitated in their local newspapers. There were at most 4 television networks (only three of which people relied upon for national news broadcasts) which also frequently sourced the same material. So, in many ways, there was absolutely no redundancy in the system. This was a single-point-of-failure system, therefore it was prone to massive failure. From that standpoint, it was far less reliable.
Granted, the newer system certainly has more noise in it, so we're actually required to think rather than being told what to think. I see that as a good thing. But the probability of completely false information being propagated and accepted as the truth is slowly diminishing as more people become trained to be skeptical. Perhaps this was exactly what the President was trying to point out, however, the AFP article says this:
Now, is the AFP article wrong? Or did the President specifically target "certain" blogs and talk radio? Given his attempts to control and censor talk radio (and, to be honest, I'm surprised as hell he didn't pop a Fox News reference in there, given his obsession with them), I'd say it's likely to be an accurate paraphrase. However I can't be sure due to the dearth of alternate original sources for this material. Thus a lack of information could be the issue here.
The current controversy that's a fine example of the dangers of not thinking critically and of trusting mainstream sources is the AZ illegal alien enforcement bill. I have yet to find a single mainstream source that has read the correct bill. And googling for the actual bill didn't, until recently, return any results to the correct bill (likely due to all the links to the wrong bill). And so, here we have an instance of "some of the craziest claims" quickly gaining traction due to reliance on the "trusted" sources. The best way to educated yourself about this bill is to go to the AZ Legislature for SB 1070. However, that's going to require reading and thinking, which most people aren't going to bother doing. I have yet to see any of these wonderfully trustworthy sources address huge sections of their time and space to retracting their mistake nor attempting to educate people about the error of their previous assertions. And, given that this misinformation and subsequent spooling up of the populace was originated and propagated by the mainstream media, the lack of alternate information sources would most assuredly have resulted in nearly 100% of the population being uneducated about the realities of this bill in the past -- prior to the current information explosion.
So, in summary, I think you're partially right: you shouldn't always believe what you read. However, where I disagree is in the implication that this is a recent phenomenon, and in the President's implication that it's an issue with "certain" blogs and talk radio. The information age has finally given us the ability to ferret out credible sources on our own, which I think scares politicians.
"forum noob?" Damn, that's funny as hell.
For a minute there I thought I was in AV and some kid that had spent the last year leveling his first 55 had just gotten his DK to 60 and immediately jumped into bg to show us noobs/nubs how it's done. Well it used to be 60 anyway. I suppose 59 is correct now.
(I was also confused by the reference to this 'forum' of which he speaks. Then again, those Slavic guys with mono or whatever it was had already strained my tiny brain.)
afkautoshot brb