You know, the cooperative relationship between the US government and Microsoft are more than established. The more recent revelations of Nokia phones sending data to Noka and to Microsoft coupled with the highly deceptive answers of Nokia when asked about it points fingers directly at Microsoft for violattions of basic trust.
Anyone using Microsoft Windows in their devices right now can expect some feedback over their choice of OS right now.
That said Blackberry... also close to governments world wide. I just have no idea how close or how vulnerable QNX may be. I have used QNX in the past and enjoyed it but that's pretty much the extent of it.
"You want us to militarize the entire population apparently."
No. I want everyone to have a fighting chance if they so choose to fight back. It's a natural law, a god-given law if you will, not one bestowed upon us by government. You, apparently, would prefer that some people remain helpless. And even if *ALL* weapons were removed, some people will be weaker than others either individually or in numbers. Do you suggest that smaller individuals or smaller groups remain helpless?
"Yes, I know the argument. The police are only minutes away when help is needed in seconds... or whatever. I live in a reasonably safe area, in that I feel safe walking at night even in the sketchier parts of town. I may be unusal in that regard, but that's just me. "
Are you insane? You actually want to apply standards which work for YOUR situation to everyone?
"I am more afraid of owning a gun..."
And the truth comes out. And I get it. You're a coward; a sheep. I'll bet you will be confused to know that there are people who grow up in other countries who feel the same way about automobiles. There are. Many in Japan have that very same sentiment about driving a car.
But here's a clue for you. Gun fights aren't like you see in the movies. Accuracy is important, but not as important as being first. And to be first, you have to be aware and prepared. Skill takes a back seat to being first. And the best clue is the fact you conveniently ignore: places with more guns in the US have less violence. Places with more gun restrictions have more. If you think it's wrong, then please explain Chicago.
I understand the notion of being a sheep. I do. Every Christian is a member of a flock, watched over by our lord shepard. It's kind of programed into us. And we want to believe if we are good people, bad things are "less likely" to happen to us. To that, I invite you to look into the violent crime rate of businesses which are "gun free" as compared to immediate neighbors which do not prohibit guns. You will begin to see why Denny's is selected over others when criminals select victims.
Sheep are livestock. Understand it and never forget it.
If more people had guns available, those people wouldn't exist as often and wouldn't be able to be a "mass killer" as the opportunity to qualify would likely be cut short in most instances.
But that said, if you do the mind experiment, a person who wanted to be a mass killer in an armed society would likely advance beyond mere firearms and move into massive explosives, chemical, radiological and biological weapons. You're mistaking the means as being the threat. It is and always has been the people.
And I'm sorry to break it to you... Sandy Hook is a fraud. Were you aware of the charities for Sandy Hook being set up two days prior to the incident? Also, the local air ambulance services were never called to the scene? Odd wouldn't you say? I know, I know, "conspiracy theory." It's pretty easy to see when things aren't quite right but the two details I cited are easily verifiable so I invite you to do so.
If the solution isn't more civilian guns, then is it more police???? Because part of the problem IS police and the other part is police not being able to respond within seconds. As they say, when seconds count, it's good to know that police are only minutes away.
In creating the US as a nation, we are mountain climbers and we climbed to where we are today. And since we have arrived, we no longer need the tools we used in climbing the mountain so we just throw them away?
As for who teaches how to use guns? Well, those would be the same people who taught us to walk and eat with knives and forks. Do you imagine that parents are no longer responsible for teaching children? Sounds like a big part of the problem doesn't it.
You aren't reading the constitution correctly. For that matter you aren't even paying attention to the oath of office for most people in government office. That little bit about upholding the constitution against "enemies foreign and domestic" wasn't a slip of the lip or a grammatical error. It meant to recognize that enemies of the nation and its constitution exist everywhere. And who could be an enemy of the constitution who isn't domestic? (rhetorical)
But also, I recommend you understand the definitions of the words used in the language of the constitution from the days it was written. For example, the word militia means all people of military eligibility. And "well regulated" means practiced and trained.
The US was born "addicted" to firearms. It would be nice if we no longer needed guns, but as evidenced by the fact we insist our police carry them, it is clear we ALL need them and for exactly the same reason. People have not changed in nature for thousands upon thousands of years. So it stands to reason the tools we needed to get us here are still needed. Or, perhaps, do you imagine humanity has evolved beyond its nature?
Did I say it wrong or did you read it wrong? Where do I suggest harming the second amendment? I completely support the 2nd amendment to levels which some pro-second people might disagree. I think EVERYONE of adult age should be armed. If people choose not to be, that is their right but for people to go about cowering in fear at the very word "gun" should be a signal to just how cowardly the people of the US have become. Meanwhile gun-toting paramilitary police are out there wearing masks and no name-tags or anything to suggest legitimacy are doing amazingly horrible things with complete impunity.
We need some serious reversals and I think as long as we are teaching sex education to teach people how to use their body's hardware properly and safely, we should be doing the same for guns as well. When I was a child, that was just being phased out... I still have recollection of a JROTC shooting range within one of the schools I attended long ago. No one was horrified there were guns in school then. What has changed? Only the politics and the cultivation of public fear.
First, the gun-grabber Dwayne Ferguson gets caught carrying a loaded weapon into an elementary school racking up felony charges which would have been a misdemeanor had he not pushed so hard to upgrade the laws in his state. Now we have a famous fracker who is now fighting his own industry trying to prevent it from happening close to his land. Now we just need some successful eminent domain victims in rich neighborhoods to have their homes destroyed and lands taken so NASCAR can build another loud-assed track.
The reality of all of this is none of these people will learn anything from their lessons. They believe this is how the world SHOULD and DOES work. Forget about tenets of civilization such as not doing to people that which you wouldn't want done to you. Those notions are for non-sociopaths. They believe everyone should simply get and take what they can. If they can get it, they deserve it. So what they will learn, if anything at all, is that "it's fair because it even happens to him" which will somehow empower and even entitle this fracking-arse-hole to continue at his job.
And the gun-grabber? Seems he's not giving up on his gun-grabbing even though he is victim on his own ridiculous law. Conviction under this law will result in his permanent ineligibility to ever carry a weapon again yet somehow I think it may not apply to him in the future. I'm betting after a symbolic punishment and a period of time long enough for his name to disappear from headlines, he will have his record expunged or even have a presidential pardon (Quite likely IMHO) to restore his second amendment "privileges."
(Yes, in quotes... it's a right which the government is NOT at liberty to remove. So says the constitution.)
Well there is a lot more to it than that... Angry people must also have little to nothing to lose. That's where the tyrants and their greedy supporters always seem to screw up. They need to maintain a minimum level of "something to lose" to maintain control over their subjects. But the greed of the supporters is unlimited and that's a problem of the leadership to help them understand...which they inevitably fail to do.
So [Tyrant] [Supporters] [Subjects]
The Tyrant-Supporter relationship is pretty tricky too. Supporters want wealth and power. They know they can get it through any tyrant but the one in office is the obvious choice until the Tyrant, trying to avoid crossing that "nothing to lose" threshold with the subjects, have to limit the amount the supporters can get from the subjects. Limit the supporters enough and they will want to replace the tyrant which will give them more. So that balance is pretty tricky indeed and is always destined to collapse because someone ALWAYS gets unhappy enough to make changes.
The best answer, of course, would be a constitutional amendment targeting the Tyrant-Supporters relationship. And by supporters, I mean lobbyist and all of that muck. It might be easier to say "separate money from politics" but that's pretty hard indeed.
This story doesn't indicate that this is largely the NSA collecting information in support of further executive adjustments to the Afraudable Care Act. This is just how they operate. "It's better to beg for forgiveness than to get permission or follow legislation. It's even better to deny that you did it than to beg for forgiveness." --Eric Holder
The porn industry has some amazingly sexist statistics. It's a very sexist industry. Something needs to be done about that!! We have to encourage more women to enjoy watching porn and more men to engage in producing it. Yeah... equality in all business and recreation. That's the ticket!
There is a very real distinction between the people and their interests, and the state and its interests. These are useful moments which illustrate for everyone that it's not quite a democracy and not quite a republic. The interests of the people, such as fairness, do not factor in as much as protecting the interests of those in office, those who support those in office and those who are, in turn, supported by those in office.
So you're saying "yes, that's what they are doing, but your privacy is secure because they are only comparing hashes against known cheat-sites." Yeah, that's not good enough because the hash list can always be expanded to include other, more invasive hash searches for reasons other than banning. And in addition to that, this is a limit on free speech and of freedom to learn and understand how things work. Finally, it doesn't account for accidental or unintentional access to said sites.
I don't think gladness was ever the message behind the lock-downs. Nearly everything portrayed was viewed as a hostile over-reaction by the government. But then again, that's my own lens I am viewing this through. But I can't recall hearing anyone saying "Thank god the police came and locked everything down and started busting in our doors trying to find this guy!"
And we don't even need to talk about the giant holes in the whole narrative either.
Free nation! Under God! Best thing since apple pie.
The US has really fallen from its optimistic condition so many decades ago. And that failure is not the worst thing about it. It's the fact that no one in the US seems to care.
I hate to say this, but it needs to be hammered home for all to understand.
Our taxes go to pay the interest on the debt the government owes to other countries and the Federal Reserve Bank. Fortunately, the interest rates at the Fed are extremely low. Unfortunately, I doubt the government has any inclination to pay the debt down... not when there's a hungry military industrial complex to feed.
To presume that your tax dollars actually go to anything directly, let alone good or useful indicates that one's understanding of how money flows in the US today needs to be updated since the 1950's or before. The money supply is endless because the debt is endless. It's surprising to me that the world is only now beginning to catch on.
At the very mention of Uranus, anal and probe jokes/comments will abound. I can't say I wasn't tempted to do the same, but that planet is already the butt of too many pokes... err jokes.
Oh, they signed something. Well then, that's different. I can't speak too much for England, but I can say the US picked up a lot of bad habits from England... and 1940s Germany too. So if England is anything like the US, then the constitution and local policies and practices trump international agreements. Additionally, "terrorism" defense trumps any and all aspects related to human rights, due process or any of that stuff.
The only thing surprising to me is that a border agent cares enough to harass anyone. But then again, we're talking about border agents, not TSA.
1. We're talking about England. 2. They don't really have a Constitution in a single document form as it is known in other countries. 3. It's not a dead parrot.
I wish I had thought to mention that myself, but my rant was already pretty long.
Yes. Apple loves to restrict and limit. And they don't care what it costs the end user. "No, you cannot replace the battery. If we let you do that, other companies would make compatible batteries and extended life batteries and all that mess. Also, we want to make sure we can find you and your phone. It must be on at all times even if you think it's off."
I'm starting to rethink who the good guys and who the bad guys were on Get Smart. I am starting to prefer KAOS over CONTROL.
The Apple tech itself is great. It's what they "allow you to do with it" that angers me. It's really as simple as that. They make cool things and then they restrict, limit and lock them down. Case-in-point? Copy-Paste was a feature of second generation iPhone and newer releases of iOS. They didn't omit it because it never occurred to them. It was a limitation they put in there by design and ended up going back on because people were pretty upset about it. And saving attachments in email? Is that still disallowed?
Well, since the story is actually not real, who knows.
It does serve as a message to the industry about what's not acceptable. That message has come out loud and clear in so many ways against so many companies lately that it stands reason that the industry, and valve especially, will still get the message.
As for dumping games and buying guns? I don't know. The market in that area is still growing. And as elections are getting closer, the price of guns and ammo as well as gasoline are temporarily dropping. And the market is especially interested in women as a growing demographic. So very interesting things are happening there despite the present media hype about gun violence. (They rarely report that it's decreasing every year and has been for a long time and even more rarely report that places with more restrictive gun laws have more gun violence than places without.)
And the US's culture of politically correct fear is just about ready burn itself out as issues are increasingly coming to a head. We're tired of racism. We're tired of fear, hype and hysteria. We're growing more tired of government though admittedly, most don't realize or understand how incredibly dependent on government they actually are. The landscape is shifting even if it's not fast enough for my taste.
...you mean the same way people classically lump "PC" vs. Mac instead of "Dell vs. Apple"? The software platform of Apple and that of Android is a fair comparison.
With the passing of Jobs, I'm pretty sure everyone must realize that Apple's relevance is simply fading away. I know this sounds like a troll and perhaps in some ways it is.
Despite the fact that I disliked Jobs and all that, there's no denying he was extremely effective. Despite the fact that I think he help the company from overtaking the business marketplace, he probably did it for extremely good reasons. He probably kept the company from making huge mistakes and from being hugely liable for all sorts of problems which Microsoft lives with daily. Legacy code support, business and government needs and all that. While there is no doubt Apple has that problem, Jobs managed to keep those things in check and their liabilities limited.
And anyone familiar with Apple's history will recall what Apple did when they canned Jobs. They almost died because they did everything the normal business way. It didn't work. They weren't tooled to make it work. And Jobs is definitely not coming back (though I have no doubt some are still holding out hope) this time. Will there be a next great cult leader of Apple? Doesn't seem to be. So what's ahead besides the public getting tired of incremental advancements which seem to follow other products which have been successful with incremental advancements? Don't know, but I suspect anything to do with anti-privacy and personal identification research will bite Apple in the ass in today's political climate. The whole planet is still pretty angry at the US and US companies. Pushing that stuff forward now seems like it will not go over very well. But what do I know? I'm just a guy on Slashdot.
Apple doesn't have a magic-man any longer. True? Apple pushes a non-Microsoft way to the masses. True? This has always been a disadvantaged position in business and often even in personal computing. True? Apple's fandom kept it going for a while but was floundering until Jobs brought it all back but it wasn't about computers any longer. True? Now Apple is essentially "consumer electronics with a legacy of personal computer stuff." True? The mobile market, the one which Apple unquestionably played a highly visible and major role in its present-day and contemporary form, has MATURED. True? (Apple seems to think so or else it wouldn't be looking to watches and other things which, IMHO are doomed to impractical failure.) A matured market has had many players and competitors but the main players are decreasing in numbers. I just don't see where Apple will continue to fit in.
Suggestions for Apple? Get into more personal data storage and computing. Don't just let things connect together in limited, specified ways. Get into personal storage environments -- personal clouds. Create a wireless standard for storage so that users can keep their data secure and available (a tricky balance which almost seems mutually exclusive) and synchronized.
I think personal computing needs to be UI adaptable while providing access to most or all apps and data the user wants. But there is no universal wireless universal storage scheme yet. (You know, like a wireless server in your pocket or backpack or whatever?) Put R&D money there. This isn't only what people want, it's what they need. Apple has momentum and is capable of doing it. But will their own corporate greed prevent them from trying to keep control of user data the way everyone else is? Or will they get pushed aside when someone else steps up and says "you now control your own data and you can have it any way you want." I know lots of people want all of their pictures, all of their videos, all of their music available to them all of the time and at the same time, they don't want someone else controlling or containing it for them. Especially now.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, the cooperative relationship between the US government and Microsoft are more than established. The more recent revelations of Nokia phones sending data to Noka and to Microsoft coupled with the highly deceptive answers of Nokia when asked about it points fingers directly at Microsoft for violattions of basic trust.
Anyone using Microsoft Windows in their devices right now can expect some feedback over their choice of OS right now.
That said Blackberry... also close to governments world wide. I just have no idea how close or how vulnerable QNX may be. I have used QNX in the past and enjoyed it but that's pretty much the extent of it.
"You want us to militarize the entire population apparently."
No. I want everyone to have a fighting chance if they so choose to fight back. It's a natural law, a god-given law if you will, not one bestowed upon us by government. You, apparently, would prefer that some people remain helpless. And even if *ALL* weapons were removed, some people will be weaker than others either individually or in numbers. Do you suggest that smaller individuals or smaller groups remain helpless?
"Yes, I know the argument. The police are only minutes away when help is needed in seconds. .. or whatever. I live in a reasonably safe area, in that I feel safe walking at night even in the sketchier parts of town. I may be unusal in that regard, but that's just me. "
Are you insane? You actually want to apply standards which work for YOUR situation to everyone?
"I am more afraid of owning a gun ..."
And the truth comes out. And I get it. You're a coward; a sheep. I'll bet you will be confused to know that there are people who grow up in other countries who feel the same way about automobiles. There are. Many in Japan have that very same sentiment about driving a car.
But here's a clue for you. Gun fights aren't like you see in the movies. Accuracy is important, but not as important as being first. And to be first, you have to be aware and prepared. Skill takes a back seat to being first. And the best clue is the fact you conveniently ignore: places with more guns in the US have less violence. Places with more gun restrictions have more. If you think it's wrong, then please explain Chicago.
I understand the notion of being a sheep. I do. Every Christian is a member of a flock, watched over by our lord shepard. It's kind of programed into us. And we want to believe if we are good people, bad things are "less likely" to happen to us. To that, I invite you to look into the violent crime rate of businesses which are "gun free" as compared to immediate neighbors which do not prohibit guns. You will begin to see why Denny's is selected over others when criminals select victims.
Sheep are livestock. Understand it and never forget it.
Glad you cited the villains of our day.
If more people had guns available, those people wouldn't exist as often and wouldn't be able to be a "mass killer" as the opportunity to qualify would likely be cut short in most instances.
But that said, if you do the mind experiment, a person who wanted to be a mass killer in an armed society would likely advance beyond mere firearms and move into massive explosives, chemical, radiological and biological weapons. You're mistaking the means as being the threat. It is and always has been the people.
And I'm sorry to break it to you... Sandy Hook is a fraud. Were you aware of the charities for Sandy Hook being set up two days prior to the incident? Also, the local air ambulance services were never called to the scene? Odd wouldn't you say? I know, I know, "conspiracy theory." It's pretty easy to see when things aren't quite right but the two details I cited are easily verifiable so I invite you to do so.
If the solution isn't more civilian guns, then is it more police???? Because part of the problem IS police and the other part is police not being able to respond within seconds. As they say, when seconds count, it's good to know that police are only minutes away.
It's analogy time!
In creating the US as a nation, we are mountain climbers and we climbed to where we are today. And since we have arrived, we no longer need the tools we used in climbing the mountain so we just throw them away?
As for who teaches how to use guns? Well, those would be the same people who taught us to walk and eat with knives and forks. Do you imagine that parents are no longer responsible for teaching children? Sounds like a big part of the problem doesn't it.
You aren't reading the constitution correctly. For that matter you aren't even paying attention to the oath of office for most people in government office. That little bit about upholding the constitution against "enemies foreign and domestic" wasn't a slip of the lip or a grammatical error. It meant to recognize that enemies of the nation and its constitution exist everywhere. And who could be an enemy of the constitution who isn't domestic? (rhetorical)
But also, I recommend you understand the definitions of the words used in the language of the constitution from the days it was written. For example, the word militia means all people of military eligibility. And "well regulated" means practiced and trained.
The US was born "addicted" to firearms. It would be nice if we no longer needed guns, but as evidenced by the fact we insist our police carry them, it is clear we ALL need them and for exactly the same reason. People have not changed in nature for thousands upon thousands of years. So it stands to reason the tools we needed to get us here are still needed. Or, perhaps, do you imagine humanity has evolved beyond its nature?
Did I say it wrong or did you read it wrong? Where do I suggest harming the second amendment? I completely support the 2nd amendment to levels which some pro-second people might disagree. I think EVERYONE of adult age should be armed. If people choose not to be, that is their right but for people to go about cowering in fear at the very word "gun" should be a signal to just how cowardly the people of the US have become. Meanwhile gun-toting paramilitary police are out there wearing masks and no name-tags or anything to suggest legitimacy are doing amazingly horrible things with complete impunity.
We need some serious reversals and I think as long as we are teaching sex education to teach people how to use their body's hardware properly and safely, we should be doing the same for guns as well. When I was a child, that was just being phased out... I still have recollection of a JROTC shooting range within one of the schools I attended long ago. No one was horrified there were guns in school then. What has changed? Only the politics and the cultivation of public fear.
First, the gun-grabber Dwayne Ferguson gets caught carrying a loaded weapon into an elementary school racking up felony charges which would have been a misdemeanor had he not pushed so hard to upgrade the laws in his state. Now we have a famous fracker who is now fighting his own industry trying to prevent it from happening close to his land. Now we just need some successful eminent domain victims in rich neighborhoods to have their homes destroyed and lands taken so NASCAR can build another loud-assed track.
The reality of all of this is none of these people will learn anything from their lessons. They believe this is how the world SHOULD and DOES work. Forget about tenets of civilization such as not doing to people that which you wouldn't want done to you. Those notions are for non-sociopaths. They believe everyone should simply get and take what they can. If they can get it, they deserve it. So what they will learn, if anything at all, is that "it's fair because it even happens to him" which will somehow empower and even entitle this fracking-arse-hole to continue at his job.
And the gun-grabber? Seems he's not giving up on his gun-grabbing even though he is victim on his own ridiculous law. Conviction under this law will result in his permanent ineligibility to ever carry a weapon again yet somehow I think it may not apply to him in the future. I'm betting after a symbolic punishment and a period of time long enough for his name to disappear from headlines, he will have his record expunged or even have a presidential pardon (Quite likely IMHO) to restore his second amendment "privileges."
(Yes, in quotes... it's a right which the government is NOT at liberty to remove. So says the constitution.)
Well there is a lot more to it than that... Angry people must also have little to nothing to lose. That's where the tyrants and their greedy supporters always seem to screw up. They need to maintain a minimum level of "something to lose" to maintain control over their subjects. But the greed of the supporters is unlimited and that's a problem of the leadership to help them understand...which they inevitably fail to do.
So [Tyrant] [Supporters] [Subjects]
The Tyrant-Supporter relationship is pretty tricky too. Supporters want wealth and power. They know they can get it through any tyrant but the one in office is the obvious choice until the Tyrant, trying to avoid crossing that "nothing to lose" threshold with the subjects, have to limit the amount the supporters can get from the subjects. Limit the supporters enough and they will want to replace the tyrant which will give them more. So that balance is pretty tricky indeed and is always destined to collapse because someone ALWAYS gets unhappy enough to make changes.
The best answer, of course, would be a constitutional amendment targeting the Tyrant-Supporters relationship. And by supporters, I mean lobbyist and all of that muck. It might be easier to say "separate money from politics" but that's pretty hard indeed.
AngryPeople + BadGovernment = Uprising
This story doesn't indicate that this is largely the NSA collecting information in support of further executive adjustments to the Afraudable Care Act. This is just how they operate. "It's better to beg for forgiveness than to get permission or follow legislation. It's even better to deny that you did it than to beg for forgiveness." --Eric Holder
The porn industry has some amazingly sexist statistics. It's a very sexist industry. Something needs to be done about that!! We have to encourage more women to enjoy watching porn and more men to engage in producing it. Yeah... equality in all business and recreation. That's the ticket!
That somehow makes President Business and Lord Business less silly names.
There is a very real distinction between the people and their interests, and the state and its interests. These are useful moments which illustrate for everyone that it's not quite a democracy and not quite a republic. The interests of the people, such as fairness, do not factor in as much as protecting the interests of those in office, those who support those in office and those who are, in turn, supported by those in office.
So you're saying "yes, that's what they are doing, but your privacy is secure because they are only comparing hashes against known cheat-sites." Yeah, that's not good enough because the hash list can always be expanded to include other, more invasive hash searches for reasons other than banning. And in addition to that, this is a limit on free speech and of freedom to learn and understand how things work. Finally, it doesn't account for accidental or unintentional access to said sites.
It's tyrannical and completely unacceptable.
I don't think gladness was ever the message behind the lock-downs. Nearly everything portrayed was viewed as a hostile over-reaction by the government. But then again, that's my own lens I am viewing this through. But I can't recall hearing anyone saying "Thank god the police came and locked everything down and started busting in our doors trying to find this guy!"
And we don't even need to talk about the giant holes in the whole narrative either.
Free nation! Under God! Best thing since apple pie.
The US has really fallen from its optimistic condition so many decades ago. And that failure is not the worst thing about it. It's the fact that no one in the US seems to care.
I hate to say this, but it needs to be hammered home for all to understand.
Our taxes go to pay the interest on the debt the government owes to other countries and the Federal Reserve Bank. Fortunately, the interest rates at the Fed are extremely low. Unfortunately, I doubt the government has any inclination to pay the debt down... not when there's a hungry military industrial complex to feed.
To presume that your tax dollars actually go to anything directly, let alone good or useful indicates that one's understanding of how money flows in the US today needs to be updated since the 1950's or before. The money supply is endless because the debt is endless. It's surprising to me that the world is only now beginning to catch on.
At the very mention of Uranus, anal and probe jokes/comments will abound. I can't say I wasn't tempted to do the same, but that planet is already the butt of too many pokes... err jokes.
Oh, they signed something. Well then, that's different. I can't speak too much for England, but I can say the US picked up a lot of bad habits from England... and 1940s Germany too. So if England is anything like the US, then the constitution and local policies and practices trump international agreements. Additionally, "terrorism" defense trumps any and all aspects related to human rights, due process or any of that stuff.
The only thing surprising to me is that a border agent cares enough to harass anyone. But then again, we're talking about border agents, not TSA.
I would like to direct you here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
1. We're talking about England.
2. They don't really have a Constitution in a single document form as it is known in other countries.
3. It's not a dead parrot.
I wish I had thought to mention that myself, but my rant was already pretty long.
Yes. Apple loves to restrict and limit. And they don't care what it costs the end user. "No, you cannot replace the battery. If we let you do that, other companies would make compatible batteries and extended life batteries and all that mess. Also, we want to make sure we can find you and your phone. It must be on at all times even if you think it's off."
I'm starting to rethink who the good guys and who the bad guys were on Get Smart. I am starting to prefer KAOS over CONTROL.
You saw it first when Microsoft users were refusing to upgrade. The same is beginning to be true of Apple stuff.
The Apple tech itself is great. It's what they "allow you to do with it" that angers me. It's really as simple as that. They make cool things and then they restrict, limit and lock them down. Case-in-point? Copy-Paste was a feature of second generation iPhone and newer releases of iOS. They didn't omit it because it never occurred to them. It was a limitation they put in there by design and ended up going back on because people were pretty upset about it. And saving attachments in email? Is that still disallowed?
Well, since the story is actually not real, who knows.
It does serve as a message to the industry about what's not acceptable. That message has come out loud and clear in so many ways against so many companies lately that it stands reason that the industry, and valve especially, will still get the message.
As for dumping games and buying guns? I don't know. The market in that area is still growing. And as elections are getting closer, the price of guns and ammo as well as gasoline are temporarily dropping. And the market is especially interested in women as a growing demographic. So very interesting things are happening there despite the present media hype about gun violence. (They rarely report that it's decreasing every year and has been for a long time and even more rarely report that places with more restrictive gun laws have more gun violence than places without.)
And the US's culture of politically correct fear is just about ready burn itself out as issues are increasingly coming to a head. We're tired of racism. We're tired of fear, hype and hysteria. We're growing more tired of government though admittedly, most don't realize or understand how incredibly dependent on government they actually are. The landscape is shifting even if it's not fast enough for my taste.
...you mean the same way people classically lump "PC" vs. Mac instead of "Dell vs. Apple"? The software platform of Apple and that of Android is a fair comparison.
With the passing of Jobs, I'm pretty sure everyone must realize that Apple's relevance is simply fading away. I know this sounds like a troll and perhaps in some ways it is.
Despite the fact that I disliked Jobs and all that, there's no denying he was extremely effective. Despite the fact that I think he help the company from overtaking the business marketplace, he probably did it for extremely good reasons. He probably kept the company from making huge mistakes and from being hugely liable for all sorts of problems which Microsoft lives with daily. Legacy code support, business and government needs and all that. While there is no doubt Apple has that problem, Jobs managed to keep those things in check and their liabilities limited.
And anyone familiar with Apple's history will recall what Apple did when they canned Jobs. They almost died because they did everything the normal business way. It didn't work. They weren't tooled to make it work. And Jobs is definitely not coming back (though I have no doubt some are still holding out hope) this time. Will there be a next great cult leader of Apple? Doesn't seem to be. So what's ahead besides the public getting tired of incremental advancements which seem to follow other products which have been successful with incremental advancements? Don't know, but I suspect anything to do with anti-privacy and personal identification research will bite Apple in the ass in today's political climate. The whole planet is still pretty angry at the US and US companies. Pushing that stuff forward now seems like it will not go over very well. But what do I know? I'm just a guy on Slashdot.
Apple doesn't have a magic-man any longer. True? Apple pushes a non-Microsoft way to the masses. True? This has always been a disadvantaged position in business and often even in personal computing. True? Apple's fandom kept it going for a while but was floundering until Jobs brought it all back but it wasn't about computers any longer. True? Now Apple is essentially "consumer electronics with a legacy of personal computer stuff." True? The mobile market, the one which Apple unquestionably played a highly visible and major role in its present-day and contemporary form, has MATURED. True? (Apple seems to think so or else it wouldn't be looking to watches and other things which, IMHO are doomed to impractical failure.) A matured market has had many players and competitors but the main players are decreasing in numbers. I just don't see where Apple will continue to fit in.
Suggestions for Apple? Get into more personal data storage and computing. Don't just let things connect together in limited, specified ways. Get into personal storage environments -- personal clouds. Create a wireless standard for storage so that users can keep their data secure and available (a tricky balance which almost seems mutually exclusive) and synchronized.
I think personal computing needs to be UI adaptable while providing access to most or all apps and data the user wants. But there is no universal wireless universal storage scheme yet. (You know, like a wireless server in your pocket or backpack or whatever?) Put R&D money there. This isn't only what people want, it's what they need. Apple has momentum and is capable of doing it. But will their own corporate greed prevent them from trying to keep control of user data the way everyone else is? Or will they get pushed aside when someone else steps up and says "you now control your own data and you can have it any way you want." I know lots of people want all of their pictures, all of their videos, all of their music available to them all of the time and at the same time, they don't want someone else controlling or containing it for them. Especially now.