The first big player that steps up with something competitive to Apple in that regard
Haven't prognosticators been saying this exact same thing for years about the iPod and the iTunes store?
The song goes something like this: "We've got hardware! It's got MIPS and ports and pixels and gigabytes! All we need now is easy to use software. See that word 'easy'? That must mean it's EASY to build."
As a geek, I'm not interested in an iPad because it's missing hardware options, but to the regular consumer the shiny, easy, hip user experience is everything.
Regardless of the merit of this case, don't you think it's just a bit early to come with this magic market libertarian stuff as we are still in the midst of a major financial crisis caused by massive deregulation?
I am not bothered by the fact that you exist; I am seriously concerned, however, that there was one person to mod you insightful...
Republicrats knocked over the house of cards by pulling out the wrong ones for their friends on Wall Street while also creating feel good legislation to give loans to people who couldn't afford them... that created a problem. Republicrats then decided to completely undermine the economy for the next generation by using the nuclear option of propping up failed institutions with massive amounts of printed/borrowed money that they didn't have to spend.
Because voters are stupid and can't choose the best candidates.
To keep the issue as simple as possible, I encourage people to simply vote for politicians who are fiscal conservatives (lower taxes, balance the budget).
The less money they have to spend, they less they can waste.
Encouraged by this article, I decided to lay off caffeine starting this morning. To compensate for the lack of fluids, I've consumed an extra 32 ounces of water.
Hey, it's noon and my head is absolutely pounding.
I don't buy the grandfather poster's claim that dehydration is the reason for withdrawal symptoms.
I've gone on and off caffeine several times. When I'm off it, my alertness is less volatile, but it's harder to get that little boost when I need one right before a meeting.
Sure, I dip below my baseline after a while, but for a brief while I subjectively feel like I'm back above it.
I think I'll put up with the headaches for a couple of days and go back off it to see if I still feel the same way.
I can tell when I've neglected to have my morning coffee by about 10am when the headache kicks in. It has nothing to do with a lack of a cup of water. If anything, caffeine is a diuretic, so dehydrates you even more when you take it... but I don't get a headache when all I've had is a cup of coffee in the morning.
Wow, I can't recall ever reading this many Slashdot responses and not seeing one word of dissent. Seems unanimous that everyone thinks this lady is an idiot and has no right to sue.
That should be legally binding.
Come on... not even a troll sticking his head up above the bridge?
People don't mind some change, but they don't like their belief systems upturned regularly by a system that is founded on constant change, but says it speaks "the truth".
Excellent point. Science is our best way to get at the truth, I think, but Scientists get a little carried away with themselves when communicating their findings to the public. A lot of that's the public's fault for not understanding much about statistics, causation, and just science in general - but often times Scientists (and the medical profession in your example) speak as though they understand the whole picture when they're really just theorizing on way too insufficient information.
I think that we've entered a critical time where scientific institutions need to rethink how they communicate with the public and how they police themselves.
Global warming could be the disaster of our millennia, but the politics and special interests have gotten so mixed up in the equation that it's difficult for me to sort through the issues as a trained engineer and science-loving nerd. The lay person has no chance and can only fall back on examples like they one you gave regarding diet as well as other poorly communicated events like the hyped "ice age" that was overblown in the media back in the 70s.
Since Scientists were the ones that told them that Pluto was a planet in the first place, can you understand where they place the blame for that misunderstanding?:)
The poster to whom I was responding was commenting that people were getting past Apple and its closed practices, reducing the company's hype power. I noted with several performance indicators that the company and its products are on the rise.
Then you added your own preconceptions to some simple facts to create a straw man "argument", singling me out for an attack because I pay attention to reality.
I guess if jumping to conclusions and attacking people for things they didn't say is your thing, go for it.
To set the record straight, you're precisely wrong with your assumption. I would like for there to be MORE competition in the smart phone space since that will foster better products for me to choose from.
I don't know. They're selling a gazillion iPads, Apple's stock continues to move upward, and I believe that a recent/. story highlighted the fact that Apple is gaining grounds on the higher ranked cell phone providers.
Maybe the FOSS crowd is increasing in animosity toward Apple, but "the lay people" are clamoring for more as far as I can tell.
It is what it is. If extremists on either side don't like her, that's probably a good thing.
I think that she looks like a really good pick so far. For me, it's all about personal freedom, and her more self-directed work seems to be big on free speech (which appears to be somewhat of a specialty).
There are some amicus briefs that she's authored as an advocate for someone else, but it's really hard to hold that against a lawyer doing her job.
Personally, I would be against the prosecutorial immunity she's arguing to maintain; but she's not really trying to create some new right because of a personal ideology. She's arguing on behalf of the current administration to maintain a principle that is in place to allow prosecutors to be dilligent in their pursuit of criminals. There are other safeguards in place for prosecutors who cross the line (that are in the actual amicus but not the article you referenced), and although this case was settled before a decision - the SCOTUS gave no strong indication that they disagreed with her side enough to destroy prosecutorial immunity.
Seems like she's doing her job. I wouldn't call her "evil" because of it.
Cool, thanks for the link. I was just thinking I needed to up the science reading, rather than getting into all the useless political discussions (he says, while sifting through a political article he clicked on).
Slashdot Mirror
The first big player that steps up with something competitive to Apple in that regard
Haven't prognosticators been saying this exact same thing for years about the iPod and the iTunes store?
The song goes something like this: "We've got hardware! It's got MIPS and ports and pixels and gigabytes! All we need now is easy to use software. See that word 'easy'? That must mean it's EASY to build."
As a geek, I'm not interested in an iPad because it's missing hardware options, but to the regular consumer the shiny, easy, hip user experience is everything.
Regardless of the merit of this case, don't you think it's just a bit early to come with this magic market libertarian stuff as we are still in the midst of a major financial crisis caused by massive deregulation?
I am not bothered by the fact that you exist; I am seriously concerned, however, that there was one person to mod you insightful...
Republicrats knocked over the house of cards by pulling out the wrong ones for their friends on Wall Street while also creating feel good legislation to give loans to people who couldn't afford them... that created a problem. Republicrats then decided to completely undermine the economy for the next generation by using the nuclear option of propping up failed institutions with massive amounts of printed/borrowed money that they didn't have to spend.
And that's the fault of libertarianism... okay...
Because voters are stupid and can't choose the best candidates.
To keep the issue as simple as possible, I encourage people to simply vote for politicians who are fiscal conservatives (lower taxes, balance the budget).
The less money they have to spend, they less they can waste.
Okay, so it's a wash on the diuretic effect.
Encouraged by this article, I decided to lay off caffeine starting this morning. To compensate for the lack of fluids, I've consumed an extra 32 ounces of water.
Hey, it's noon and my head is absolutely pounding.
I don't buy the grandfather poster's claim that dehydration is the reason for withdrawal symptoms.
Yeah, yeah... small sample size, no double-blind.
Yeah, plus it says:
"Cafestol has also been implicated in inhibiting the progress of Parkinson's disease[3]"
inhibiting sounds like a good word there.
I have a friend that says you need to hang out in an alley behind a Starbucks.
I've gone on and off caffeine several times. When I'm off it, my alertness is less volatile, but it's harder to get that little boost when I need one right before a meeting.
Sure, I dip below my baseline after a while, but for a brief while I subjectively feel like I'm back above it.
I think I'll put up with the headaches for a couple of days and go back off it to see if I still feel the same way.
Huh... what if I have one of those gold-ish mesh filters?
I thought that was for alcohol.
I can tell when I've neglected to have my morning coffee by about 10am when the headache kicks in. It has nothing to do with a lack of a cup of water. If anything, caffeine is a diuretic, so dehydrates you even more when you take it... but I don't get a headache when all I've had is a cup of coffee in the morning.
Wow, I can't recall ever reading this many Slashdot responses and not seeing one word of dissent. Seems unanimous that everyone thinks this lady is an idiot and has no right to sue.
That should be legally binding.
Come on... not even a troll sticking his head up above the bridge?
Well, if it had taken out her uterus before she had a chance to have any children, then she would still have been eligible.
That's three things.
Just saying.
People don't mind some change, but they don't like their belief systems upturned regularly by a system that is founded on constant change, but says it speaks "the truth".
Excellent point. Science is our best way to get at the truth, I think, but Scientists get a little carried away with themselves when communicating their findings to the public. A lot of that's the public's fault for not understanding much about statistics, causation, and just science in general - but often times Scientists (and the medical profession in your example) speak as though they understand the whole picture when they're really just theorizing on way too insufficient information.
I think that we've entered a critical time where scientific institutions need to rethink how they communicate with the public and how they police themselves.
Global warming could be the disaster of our millennia, but the politics and special interests have gotten so mixed up in the equation that it's difficult for me to sort through the issues as a trained engineer and science-loving nerd. The lay person has no chance and can only fall back on examples like they one you gave regarding diet as well as other poorly communicated events like the hyped "ice age" that was overblown in the media back in the 70s.
Since Scientists were the ones that told them that Pluto was a planet in the first place, can you understand where they place the blame for that misunderstanding? :)
No, he was talking about me. I don't understand it either. Ah well.
The poster to whom I was responding was commenting that people were getting past Apple and its closed practices, reducing the company's hype power. I noted with several performance indicators that the company and its products are on the rise.
Then you added your own preconceptions to some simple facts to create a straw man "argument", singling me out for an attack because I pay attention to reality.
I guess if jumping to conclusions and attacking people for things they didn't say is your thing, go for it.
To set the record straight, you're precisely wrong with your assumption. I would like for there to be MORE competition in the smart phone space since that will foster better products for me to choose from.
Who in this thread wants Apple to wipe any competitors off the map?
It looks like you're attacking someone, but your post seems to be a bit of a non sequitor.
I guess since I mentioned true things* about Apple's success that makes me a fanboi?
* Okay, "gazillion" is a made up term, but it's some large number that I didn't look up before posting to the thread.
I don't know. They're selling a gazillion iPads, Apple's stock continues to move upward, and I believe that a recent /. story highlighted the fact that Apple is gaining grounds on the higher ranked cell phone providers.
Maybe the FOSS crowd is increasing in animosity toward Apple, but "the lay people" are clamoring for more as far as I can tell.
With this technology, why just limit yourself to Pandora's box?
It is what it is. If extremists on either side don't like her, that's probably a good thing.
I think that she looks like a really good pick so far. For me, it's all about personal freedom, and her more self-directed work seems to be big on free speech (which appears to be somewhat of a specialty).
There are some amicus briefs that she's authored as an advocate for someone else, but it's really hard to hold that against a lawyer doing her job.
Interesting case.
Personally, I would be against the prosecutorial immunity she's arguing to maintain; but she's not really trying to create some new right because of a personal ideology. She's arguing on behalf of the current administration to maintain a principle that is in place to allow prosecutors to be dilligent in their pursuit of criminals. There are other safeguards in place for prosecutors who cross the line (that are in the actual amicus but not the article you referenced), and although this case was settled before a decision - the SCOTUS gave no strong indication that they disagreed with her side enough to destroy prosecutorial immunity.
Seems like she's doing her job. I wouldn't call her "evil" because of it.
Try http://www.slashdot.jp/ to avoid the American slant... good luck with the Kanji.
Or you could skip the articles with the *American* flag icons?
Yeah, from what I've read so far, I think I like her.
Cool, thanks for the link. I was just thinking I needed to up the science reading, rather than getting into all the useless political discussions (he says, while sifting through a political article he clicked on).
An ad hominem is attacking the person rather than the argument.
Telling me I'm full of it is a personal attack.
On a personal note: I hope you learn to control your anger better and realize that all the verbal flailing about only makes you look bad, not me.