The global warming discussion started a VERY long time ago. Concern over emissions and pollution have been an issue for as long as I can remember... so just over 40 years. Things could have been done... should have been done. Not much has actually been done.
What stupid things have been done? Like "taxing" polution. Seriously. And the rate of taxation was lower than the cost of fixing the problem so guess which way business went? And what was done with the money? It went back into the "enconomy" and by that I mean the major players who are also major polluters.
Taxing was a stupid idea. Making them ineligible for government contracts would have been the way to go.
The resource we will run out of is useful land. Climate change is weather change. Weather change directly affects the land which affects the food supply.
The fun part is that we get a lof of our food from places like Mexico. Farming in the US has become too screwed up.
The costs of resources is a problem in that perhaps the price of non-renewables is too low. I smell a little strategy in that. The price of natural gas, a fossil fuel and non-renewable and emitting greenhouse exhaust is lower than getting a nuclear plant going which doesn't put ANYTHING into the air.
Until other power sources become available, we should be going full bore nuclear. We're not. People freak out at the demand of the media which, incidentally, is controlled by who again?
There's just no chance that the people with money who pay the people with guns will be able to see beyond their lust for more power and more money. This means things will go to hell with large amounts of certainty.
If there were profit in saving the world [from those who put us there] then they would be interested in saving the world. They have no interest in that. They might entertain the notion if they were guaranteed to come out on top and in control once the crisis was averted, of course, because this is all about giving up power and control.
I am an army of one. I cannot make a difference. But if I saw an army of many marching down the street, I would be inclined to join.
And beyond this, the denial is STILL out there being preached. First they said "it's not real!" Then they said "it's not our fault! It's nature!" Yet in any of this none are willing to make changes or do anything about it. But I don't blame the businesses entirely. It reminds me of the economy of slavery.
There was a town near New Orleans which abolished slavery before Lincoln did. The surrounding areas, of course, did not. Before long, local business could not compete with outside business. This town was forced into allowing slavery once again. Lincoln was successful because it was a unilateral decision. Individuals cannot make an effective change. Small groups cannot make an effective change. It takes unilateral change in order to work.
So even if the whole US stopped CO2 and other emissions today, it wouldn't matter because China and others are simply not going to change.
So you see, the kind of change we require is simply impossible without world war. And that kind of war is simply not going to happen.
And so I say, I'm ready for things to go to hell. I can't imagine a way out that is likely.
It is not clutter. It is necessary. Trash cans in the home might be considered clutter too I suppose. Some people artfully conceal them within cabinets and such, but in whatever form, they are both necessary and either take up space or get in the way or both.
It is the reality we live in. If you want to code in a language that doesn't require error handling, you might look to one of those languages we use to teach 5 year olds how to program in.
Good code does everything needed to manage and filter input, process data accurately and deliver the output faithfully and ensuring that it was delivered well. All of this requires error checking along the way. If you leave it to the language or the OS to handle errors, your running code looks unprofessional and is likely to abort and close for unknown causes.
I think the short of this is that if anyone sees error checking as clutter or some sort of needless burden, they need to not code and to do something else... or just grow up.
Not gonna do all of that. I will, however invite you to review the market trends. The interest in iPad, iPod, iPhone have declined. Perhaps the market is saturated already. The stock market shows their value dropping. The intellectual property is also being lost as a direct result of their assaults. Their secret deals with other handset makers are being brought to light and weakening their cases against others.
Another point of failure is that while initially people were quite scared of Apple's thunder and initial success with their claims backed by doctored images and the like. They somehow won some injunctive relief along the way. But after much legal scrutiny, it is being shown that injunctive relief is inappropriate. Apple has yet to show irreparable harm which is a requirement for injunctive relief. If money can make them whole, then they are ineligible for injunctive relief.
Also, Apple did not invent the multi-touch anything. They didn't invent the ARM processor or invent the first devices using it... on the internet. We get it. Your a rabid, mouth foaming fan. But you really need to revisit your beliefs and balance them against the facts. It makes you look... well... you decide what it looks like when someone's beliefs lie in contrast to reality.
I think the most significant argument Apple has offered is "trade dress." But the problem with the argument they are making is that I don't think any device so far is similar enough to Apple's to be call infringing. I think Apple's devices are uniquely and unmistakably Apple's. And at least a judge in the UK courts agrees with me on that and has been successful at driving that point home. (I am sure you followed that story right? And their childish handling of the judge's orders?) So even in this, Apple is losing.
And the judges in cases being made all over the world are comparing notes and all that. Did you notice how the case of Samsung vs. Apple in Japan was getting discovery through the US courts? Apple thought it could file suits in various nations all over the world and collect different judgements, but it turns out every different loss it becoming a limitation on all of the other cases being filed everywhere else.
Apple started out big. They are no longer. Their cases are failing. Their market share is failing. The lines outside of Apple stores have all but disappeared.
I know you think that become I don't love Apple that I must hate Apple. I don't. I own and use a mac mini and my wife uses a mac pro for her web development and design work. I like the devices very much but I recognize their limitations. And the limitations of Apple's stuff are easy to recognize. I can simply do more in many cases than I can do more with other platforms than I can with Apple's. For example, can you connect an iPad to a bluetooth OBD2 module so you can get data from your car? I can with Linux, Android and Windows. Apple had decided that iHandheld devices can only use bluetooth for hands-free purposes. Why? I don't really care why. I just know that I can't do what I want to with Apple's gear. I can only do what is the intersection between what I want and what Apple wants. And that's a serious limitation.
I know that's what he told his biographer but when it comes to taking his company down with it over it and essentially throwing it all away? I'm not so sure he was without some sense of reason.
I'm no Apple fan at all. But there's no denying that they make/made a kind of irrisistible candy that no one could actually duplicate. It was stupid of them to think anyone else was a threat.
I see lots of things wrong with Apple's products. It's not free enough for me. It's terrific for other people though and that's more than enough to keep them in business though. The problem is they never seem to be satisfied when they have "enough."
Apparently Steve never learned the actual lesson and message behind the movie "War Games." There are no winners in thermonuclear war. The only way to win is not to play.
I believe Jobs would have halted this as it got more ugly and apparent that Apple would lose. But since he died, there was no halting it and I suspect anyone at Apple who would want to "go against god's... err Jobs's will" would be branded a heretic or a traitor or something like that.
Apple is already losing the war over the touch screen smart phone. They are losing their intellectual property as well. They are causing harm to everyone in the industry and that includes the consumers whether they use Apple or Android or even something else.
The sooner this is concluded the better. Samsung needs a new trial. Apple's IP needs to be resolved as to what is valid and what isn't. It needs to be settled.
Fact is, the more business out there struggles to come to terms with the internet and what people do with it, the more it becomes apparent which will adapt and which will need to be replaced.
There is a big hint offered in how business perceives the net. If they see it as a threat and attempt to battle it, they will lose.
In the case of the hardware, they are not liable because the problem would be in the software. In the case of the software, they would be indemnified by the EULA. Game over right?
Well, I can see your point but by making it a product with visibility and all that, people are more inclined to standardize on a particular way of doing things.
I would like it if EVERY game would recognize bluetooth controller inputs and all that. They don't. That needs to change.
Now for something completely off topic.
Yesterday I learned an embarassing and unhappy thing about iPhone, iPod and probably iPad too. Where bluetooth is concerned, they only want to connect to audio devices and other iPods. I wanted to connect my boss's iPhone to his car using a bluetooth OBD2 device. Turns out Apple has placed a serious limit on what you can connect to via bluetooth.
I'm not an iPhone user and never planned on it. But learning this detail embarassed me because I was extremely sure it was possible. Well it is... you have to root/jailbreak your iphone to do it. Why is Apple doing this to its customers? [Rhetorical]
Okay, back to controllers. I have seen where people are using PS3 game controllers with android. I wanna do that too. Someone even made a clever mounting device to connect between a phone and a controller to make them like one, handheld device. I totally want that.
Problem is not all the games play this way. That is something which is missing.
I don't care where I get a BT controller. I'm okay with XBox style or PS3 style or even classic Nintendo style. (Not Gangnam style though) Just standardize. And I think [read hope] that's what they are trying to make happen.
I don't know about this TV connecting thing though... never tried it.
Actually, I just read through most of his wikipedia page and it's a whole lot of "wow!" Dotcom is amazing. As a criminal, you simply have to admire his drive, guts and ability. Of course he's a criminal scum-bucket and deserves to be removed from society to better protect society's interests. But that said, it does not and cannot excuse misbehavior by our governments. If they expect us to respect and live by the rule of law, they should do the same. And if they are willing to break the law "to get a bad guy" then I have to wonder why we even bother with courts and due process at all. Also, who will be considered a "bad guy" tomorrow? Will we even get to know who it might be?
Without sanity, openness and accountability in government, we cannot hope to protect anyone and definitely not you.
When I hear [read] the name Kim Dotcom, I thought he was Korean or something along those lines as that is the only place I know of where men can be named Kim. I guess I was wrong on that. Looking at the picture of Doctom in the article, I am reminded of Eric Cartman.
So when experts and professionals in their fields say HFCS is a danger, they are quacks, but when the industry says it's perfectly safe, they are to be believed. It's a damned good thing people didn't take "safe" for an answer where tobacco was concerned. The similarities are obvious including all the crank doctors out there making unsubstantiated claims about the harms of smoking.
Calling things crank doesn't make it so.
For example, the FDA approved aspartame. But only after Dick Cheney managed to get it pushed through after being rejected multiple times by the same FDA previously. Aspartame didn't change. And Aspartame is controlled and even banned in other parts of the world for the same reasons the FDA initially rejected it.
I would like to know just what constitutes a believable source to you? Doctors and researchers from all over agree on these topics. All you seem to be going on is "insufficient evidence" claims. Where are your supporting verified sources? Reminds me of the global warming denial.
That's not actually accurate. First of all, there are LOTS of professionals against the use of HFCS. It isn't even corn syrup. It stopped being that during the process that converted it to a foreign type of sugar. Is gasoline still crude oil? Of course not. It's very processed... it's not even oil.
Also, HFCS isn't as sweet as real sugar or any of the alternatives such as stevia. This means in order to get the desired flavor, they have to add lots more of it. And that's part of the draw. Not only is it a sweetener, it is also a filler. (The "meat" at taco bell, for example, has so many fillers added, it can't even be considered meat. I'm not compaining about taco bell... I like it actually.) In contrast, try comparing Dr. Pepper with HFCS with the original recipe. In Texas, I used to be able to get the original recipe for Dr. Pepper with real sugar. The level of sweetness is actually unbearable. A similar experiment/demonstration can be had with CocaCola imported from Mexico. It frequently uses natural sugar instead of HFCS. You can compare the taste as well as the content. The short of it is that HFCS is less sweet and contains a much larger ratio in the mix.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/29276-problems-high-fructose-corn-syrup/ http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/high-fructose-corn-syrup/AN01588 http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ http://www.healthiertalk.com/10-worst-food-ingredients-you-should-avoid-plague-4066 -- look here too
This is a longer list of things to avoid. I have to say when I actively seek to avoid these things, my general sense of well being increases. My energy level, my motivation, my thinking... they all increase or improve in some way. Problem is, I like the foods I know are bad. I like ice cream... haven't had any in a few months but I want it. Taco bell, mentioned before... Wendy's too... they all offer inexpensive foods even if they are bad for me, cost is a serious consideration these days.
I know what's good for me. But the cards are stacked very much against me. I hold that there needs to be regulation and standards similar to these other "crank" nations who enjoy healthier lives... out of mere coincidence.?
Learn about HFCS and why it is preferred by manufacturers over natural sugar but also why it doesn't work so well within the human body pushing internal organs beyond natural tollerance.
I didn't say only preservatives, however. Nice of you to omit parts of what I said to make it more convenient to draw your incorrect conclusion. Do you follow maps in the same way without getting lost? Diabetes is caused by over consumption. But also by the ingredients in the foods we eat. In countries where many of the ingredients found in foods in the US are banned or limited, they have a much lower rate of diabetes. The very reason for the control over those ingredients is because of their connection with obesity and diabetes. You want to pretend it is about self control. That's not entirely the case. We eat what is available to us. That is the simple truth. While there is ample room for choices, the choices aren't quite so easy.
Personally, I do choose healtheir foods. Salads with one or two meals a day and that's no lie. My wife stays at home and sees to it. I also don't eat bread and pasta too often. My chances of becoming obese and/or diabetes is very slim. But it is largely because I am extremely aware of it. I don't think the ignorance of the masses is their fault and even if it were, we are a collective... a society of humans. Like it or not, we all affect each other. You need to grow beyond your blame of individuals to look at the larger picture of humanity and the factors at play within society.
I think maybe you're reading something more than I've written.
I simply state that any law should help to overcome human nature and behavior while at the same time, not discourage... well... life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. But the fact is, we have laws which do exactly that. We have a legal system which favors incumbant business. We have taxing and incentives and all sorts of things going on which prevent the playing field from ever being level.
There should be no laws against drugs or alcohol. Laws against them are demonstrably ineffective and have led to the creation of crime and extreme criminal behavior that otherwise would not exist.
Will there be murder? Yeah... but not "murder as a part of a business plan" which is what we see in gangs and that sort of thing.
And I don't think markets should be unregulated. Rules should always be in place to ensure that the playing field is fair and even and that the ability to enter the market is not needlessly hindered. A regulated market is, in fact, key to its success and growth. Prior to the great depression, the markets were constantly going up and down causing economic bad times. It's just that the big crash was the one that finally motivated law makers to regulate the market with sanity. And it WORKED. It kept the markets healthy for a very long time. It was only after regulation was relaxed that things started to [predictably] go bad. Because human nature says people will try to get the most of anything they can at the expense of others and even at the expense of the world's economy. I don't have to prove that -- recent history demonstrates it. If you shop for a good price, you also demonstrate it quite nicely. For example, we know what goes into the manufacture of iPhones and Nike shoes. We buy them anyway.
But in general, I think when people are ready to give up on the new version of Windows, they will pirate and old one and/or move to another OS. The options are limited but flavors of Linux like Ubuntu are extremely effective with new users. (I am not an Ubuntu fan. Not at all!)
I'm not predicting doom for Windows and certainly not setting a date. I am extrapolating the more numerous and recent failures Microsoft has had and they are huge. The primary cause is customer dissatisfaction. That's a hard thing for Microsoft to fight back against.
If some enterprising company came out with a technology that blends in with the existing AD networks currently entrenched in today's business and enables tablet and tablet-like machines (think tablets with keyboards) and enables support for Microsoft legacy deployments, things would change faster. The whole BYOD push that has been going on is a major driving factor and opportunity for Android. (Note that it's not for iOS *only* because Apple doesn't want to support [and be liable for] the enterprise.) And for executives, information retreival is the big thing... information creation? Not so much. It would take longer for such things to trickle down to the cube farms.
The "in" is obvious and present. I think at this point, even if Microsoft came out with its own Android series of devices and gave it 100% compatibility with the AD networks and applications out there, people will still view it with great mistrust.
1. Some people still are running Win98SE 2. If WinXP were free, people would likely kick in with their own fixes and updates
Also, if the copyright for Windows XP were turned over to the public domain, I think the source code would ALSO be made available somehow. They could try to keep it to themselves... you know they wouldn't be obligated to publish it anywhere as far as I know... not sure how the library of congress works with regards to all of that, but I get the feeling the code would get leaked somehow.
Oh I completely dig that idea. If it is of no use to you (ie. you aren't selling it) then you have apparently exhausted its value to you as a business. It is now your responsibility under the contract of copyright, to release it to the public domain. But no. "The value" is maintained by keeping it away from the public in order to ensure that they keep buying the same things over and over and over again. This is a public abuse which could only be enabled by copyright law.
So copyright went from the right to copy and distribute to the right to take it away from the public and to withhold information, arts and technology.
I hope people are starting to sit up an take notice. The desire for fulfill the prophesies of Moore's law and to have ever faster and more powerful computing has already exhausted itself. Games are just about as good as they are going to get without new display technologies. The desktop PC has been maxed out and has been resorting to multi-processor and multi-core as the means to keep growing but meanwhile, the primary OS for most people running these systems is still not taking full advantage of even those advances.
So now things are going for lower power, lower operating temperature and all that. What sort of things benefit from that? How about "embedded systems"? Things that people don't want or need to reboot? The current versions of Windows are too bloaty, power and memory hungry to fit within that framework, so it'll have to be another OS. We know this because of the horrible failure "Netbook" computing has been. People wanted it, but expected it to run Windows. Windows couldn't really do it effectively. (I know... people are still doing it... I've still got two netbooks running XP and going strong... but anyone selling XP?) Microsoft shows no remorse over their architectural choices and show no signs of slimming down and getting lighter. So nothing points in Microsoft's direction... not even Microsoft. They are raising prices to make up for the lack of interest in what they are doing now.
On one hand, the suits associated with the behaviors past, should happen. They caused damage to consumers and to product makers. But at the same time, it somehow feels like various parties are scraping for extra cash and are seeking what I would consider to be 'last resort' means and methods to get it.
It feels like someone within the upper tiers of the economy know something the rest of us don't (and that would be an economic collapse never seen before in human history) or that this is business as usual and I just never noticed it to this degree before.
I recall the tremors I felt just prior to the most recent collapse. Banks were scrambling for fees and things... charging for every little thing that might be considered a service or courtesy. They knew what was coming and all the signs I saw made perfect sense once things became public. Fortunately, my brother saw it too and shifted his 401K to bonds and stuff like that so he didn't lose out at all.
I see all these legal suits over technology as the precursor to something bigger, hairier and darker. Just not quite sure what it is just yet, but it will achieve some critical mass at some point in the near future I think. The current level of activity is certainly not sustainable.
My children understand me better than my wife does. They are a lot like me in most respects. I see life as a whole bunch of comings and goings. We only "mourn" when we have a body and a certainty that the last time has passed. We don't freak out when we part ways after lunch even if in reality, that might be the last time you see someone alive! So when you take it apart, you realize that the mechanism is based in no small part on the notion that it is final.
I would continue to be able to interact with them and so it would be little different than what we have now. We part ways and spend less time together. The magnitude of physical distance has little bearing on the notion.... only that there is a physical distance. These days, we try to plan time over holidays and stuff. My little one still lives with me though. So it would be best if he were on his own before I go off to Mars right? And between now and then, I hope to express my philosophies in a way that provides a useful framework for him to experience and manage life that works for him as I have with my first two sons.
The thing about suicide missions most people aren't considering is body disposal. There must be an effective and sanitary means of handling the body. It would be nice if they could make soylent green, but at the very least there should be a device which would render a body as "gone" in a clean and sanitary manner. A body disposal bot would be pretty ideal... "bring out your dead... bring out your dead..."
Anyway, I'd be all for it. I have produced three viable offspring and don't plan to produce more. If departure is within the next 20 years, I'll be a perfect candidate for such a mission... I doubt my wife would agree though.
Slashdot Mirror
Humans live on land. Humans mostly eat things that grow on land. The quality of land is often determined by availability of water.
The global warming discussion started a VERY long time ago. Concern over emissions and pollution have been an issue for as long as I can remember... so just over 40 years. Things could have been done... should have been done. Not much has actually been done.
What stupid things have been done? Like "taxing" polution. Seriously. And the rate of taxation was lower than the cost of fixing the problem so guess which way business went? And what was done with the money? It went back into the "enconomy" and by that I mean the major players who are also major polluters.
Taxing was a stupid idea. Making them ineligible for government contracts would have been the way to go.
The resource we will run out of is useful land. Climate change is weather change. Weather change directly affects the land which affects the food supply.
The fun part is that we get a lof of our food from places like Mexico. Farming in the US has become too screwed up.
The costs of resources is a problem in that perhaps the price of non-renewables is too low. I smell a little strategy in that. The price of natural gas, a fossil fuel and non-renewable and emitting greenhouse exhaust is lower than getting a nuclear plant going which doesn't put ANYTHING into the air.
Until other power sources become available, we should be going full bore nuclear. We're not. People freak out at the demand of the media which, incidentally, is controlled by who again?
So... I'm ready...
There's just no chance that the people with money who pay the people with guns will be able to see beyond their lust for more power and more money. This means things will go to hell with large amounts of certainty.
If there were profit in saving the world [from those who put us there] then they would be interested in saving the world. They have no interest in that. They might entertain the notion if they were guaranteed to come out on top and in control once the crisis was averted, of course, because this is all about giving up power and control.
I am an army of one. I cannot make a difference. But if I saw an army of many marching down the street, I would be inclined to join.
And beyond this, the denial is STILL out there being preached. First they said "it's not real!" Then they said "it's not our fault! It's nature!" Yet in any of this none are willing to make changes or do anything about it. But I don't blame the businesses entirely. It reminds me of the economy of slavery.
There was a town near New Orleans which abolished slavery before Lincoln did. The surrounding areas, of course, did not. Before long, local business could not compete with outside business. This town was forced into allowing slavery once again. Lincoln was successful because it was a unilateral decision. Individuals cannot make an effective change. Small groups cannot make an effective change. It takes unilateral change in order to work.
So even if the whole US stopped CO2 and other emissions today, it wouldn't matter because China and others are simply not going to change.
So you see, the kind of change we require is simply impossible without world war. And that kind of war is simply not going to happen.
And so I say, I'm ready for things to go to hell. I can't imagine a way out that is likely.
It is not clutter. It is necessary. Trash cans in the home might be considered clutter too I suppose. Some people artfully conceal them within cabinets and such, but in whatever form, they are both necessary and either take up space or get in the way or both.
It is the reality we live in. If you want to code in a language that doesn't require error handling, you might look to one of those languages we use to teach 5 year olds how to program in.
Good code does everything needed to manage and filter input, process data accurately and deliver the output faithfully and ensuring that it was delivered well. All of this requires error checking along the way. If you leave it to the language or the OS to handle errors, your running code looks unprofessional and is likely to abort and close for unknown causes.
I think the short of this is that if anyone sees error checking as clutter or some sort of needless burden, they need to not code and to do something else... or just grow up.
Not gonna do all of that. I will, however invite you to review the market trends. The interest in iPad, iPod, iPhone have declined. Perhaps the market is saturated already. The stock market shows their value dropping. The intellectual property is also being lost as a direct result of their assaults. Their secret deals with other handset makers are being brought to light and weakening their cases against others.
Another point of failure is that while initially people were quite scared of Apple's thunder and initial success with their claims backed by doctored images and the like. They somehow won some injunctive relief along the way. But after much legal scrutiny, it is being shown that injunctive relief is inappropriate. Apple has yet to show irreparable harm which is a requirement for injunctive relief. If money can make them whole, then they are ineligible for injunctive relief.
Also, Apple did not invent the multi-touch anything. They didn't invent the ARM processor or invent the first devices using it... on the internet. We get it. Your a rabid, mouth foaming fan. But you really need to revisit your beliefs and balance them against the facts. It makes you look... well... you decide what it looks like when someone's beliefs lie in contrast to reality.
I think the most significant argument Apple has offered is "trade dress." But the problem with the argument they are making is that I don't think any device so far is similar enough to Apple's to be call infringing. I think Apple's devices are uniquely and unmistakably Apple's. And at least a judge in the UK courts agrees with me on that and has been successful at driving that point home. (I am sure you followed that story right? And their childish handling of the judge's orders?) So even in this, Apple is losing.
And the judges in cases being made all over the world are comparing notes and all that. Did you notice how the case of Samsung vs. Apple in Japan was getting discovery through the US courts? Apple thought it could file suits in various nations all over the world and collect different judgements, but it turns out every different loss it becoming a limitation on all of the other cases being filed everywhere else.
Apple started out big. They are no longer. Their cases are failing. Their market share is failing. The lines outside of Apple stores have all but disappeared.
I know you think that become I don't love Apple that I must hate Apple. I don't. I own and use a mac mini and my wife uses a mac pro for her web development and design work. I like the devices very much but I recognize their limitations. And the limitations of Apple's stuff are easy to recognize. I can simply do more in many cases than I can do more with other platforms than I can with Apple's. For example, can you connect an iPad to a bluetooth OBD2 module so you can get data from your car? I can with Linux, Android and Windows. Apple had decided that iHandheld devices can only use bluetooth for hands-free purposes. Why? I don't really care why. I just know that I can't do what I want to with Apple's gear. I can only do what is the intersection between what I want and what Apple wants. And that's a serious limitation.
I know that's what he told his biographer but when it comes to taking his company down with it over it and essentially throwing it all away? I'm not so sure he was without some sense of reason.
Agreed.
I'm no Apple fan at all. But there's no denying that they make/made a kind of irrisistible candy that no one could actually duplicate. It was stupid of them to think anyone else was a threat.
I see lots of things wrong with Apple's products. It's not free enough for me. It's terrific for other people though and that's more than enough to keep them in business though. The problem is they never seem to be satisfied when they have "enough."
Apparently Steve never learned the actual lesson and message behind the movie "War Games." There are no winners in thermonuclear war. The only way to win is not to play.
I believe Jobs would have halted this as it got more ugly and apparent that Apple would lose. But since he died, there was no halting it and I suspect anyone at Apple who would want to "go against god's... err Jobs's will" would be branded a heretic or a traitor or something like that.
Apple is already losing the war over the touch screen smart phone. They are losing their intellectual property as well. They are causing harm to everyone in the industry and that includes the consumers whether they use Apple or Android or even something else.
The sooner this is concluded the better. Samsung needs a new trial. Apple's IP needs to be resolved as to what is valid and what isn't. It needs to be settled.
Fact is, the more business out there struggles to come to terms with the internet and what people do with it, the more it becomes apparent which will adapt and which will need to be replaced.
There is a big hint offered in how business perceives the net. If they see it as a threat and attempt to battle it, they will lose.
See? They should spin off into two businesses.
1. A Hardware company
2. A Software company
In the case of the hardware, they are not liable because the problem would be in the software. In the case of the software, they would be indemnified by the EULA. Game over right?
Well, I can see your point but by making it a product with visibility and all that, people are more inclined to standardize on a particular way of doing things.
I would like it if EVERY game would recognize bluetooth controller inputs and all that. They don't. That needs to change.
Now for something completely off topic.
Yesterday I learned an embarassing and unhappy thing about iPhone, iPod and probably iPad too. Where bluetooth is concerned, they only want to connect to audio devices and other iPods. I wanted to connect my boss's iPhone to his car using a bluetooth OBD2 device. Turns out Apple has placed a serious limit on what you can connect to via bluetooth.
I'm not an iPhone user and never planned on it. But learning this detail embarassed me because I was extremely sure it was possible. Well it is... you have to root/jailbreak your iphone to do it. Why is Apple doing this to its customers? [Rhetorical]
Okay, back to controllers. I have seen where people are using PS3 game controllers with android. I wanna do that too. Someone even made a clever mounting device to connect between a phone and a controller to make them like one, handheld device. I totally want that.
Problem is not all the games play this way. That is something which is missing.
I don't care where I get a BT controller. I'm okay with XBox style or PS3 style or even classic Nintendo style. (Not Gangnam style though) Just standardize. And I think [read hope] that's what they are trying to make happen.
I don't know about this TV connecting thing though... never tried it.
Actually, I just read through most of his wikipedia page and it's a whole lot of "wow!" Dotcom is amazing. As a criminal, you simply have to admire his drive, guts and ability. Of course he's a criminal scum-bucket and deserves to be removed from society to better protect society's interests. But that said, it does not and cannot excuse misbehavior by our governments. If they expect us to respect and live by the rule of law, they should do the same. And if they are willing to break the law "to get a bad guy" then I have to wonder why we even bother with courts and due process at all. Also, who will be considered a "bad guy" tomorrow? Will we even get to know who it might be?
Without sanity, openness and accountability in government, we cannot hope to protect anyone and definitely not you.
When I hear [read] the name Kim Dotcom, I thought he was Korean or something along those lines as that is the only place I know of where men can be named Kim. I guess I was wrong on that. Looking at the picture of Doctom in the article, I am reminded of Eric Cartman.
So when experts and professionals in their fields say HFCS is a danger, they are quacks, but when the industry says it's perfectly safe, they are to be believed. It's a damned good thing people didn't take "safe" for an answer where tobacco was concerned. The similarities are obvious including all the crank doctors out there making unsubstantiated claims about the harms of smoking.
Calling things crank doesn't make it so.
For example, the FDA approved aspartame. But only after Dick Cheney managed to get it pushed through after being rejected multiple times by the same FDA previously. Aspartame didn't change. And Aspartame is controlled and even banned in other parts of the world for the same reasons the FDA initially rejected it.
I would like to know just what constitutes a believable source to you? Doctors and researchers from all over agree on these topics. All you seem to be going on is "insufficient evidence" claims. Where are your supporting verified sources? Reminds me of the global warming denial.
That's not actually accurate. First of all, there are LOTS of professionals against the use of HFCS. It isn't even corn syrup. It stopped being that during the process that converted it to a foreign type of sugar. Is gasoline still crude oil? Of course not. It's very processed... it's not even oil.
Also, HFCS isn't as sweet as real sugar or any of the alternatives such as stevia. This means in order to get the desired flavor, they have to add lots more of it. And that's part of the draw. Not only is it a sweetener, it is also a filler. (The "meat" at taco bell, for example, has so many fillers added, it can't even be considered meat. I'm not compaining about taco bell... I like it actually.) In contrast, try comparing Dr. Pepper with HFCS with the original recipe. In Texas, I used to be able to get the original recipe for Dr. Pepper with real sugar. The level of sweetness is actually unbearable. A similar experiment/demonstration can be had with CocaCola imported from Mexico. It frequently uses natural sugar instead of HFCS. You can compare the taste as well as the content. The short of it is that HFCS is less sweet and contains a much larger ratio in the mix.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/29276-problems-high-fructose-corn-syrup/ http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/high-fructose-corn-syrup/AN01588 http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ http://www.healthiertalk.com/10-worst-food-ingredients-you-should-avoid-plague-4066 -- look here too
This is a longer list of things to avoid. I have to say when I actively seek to avoid these things, my general sense of well being increases. My energy level, my motivation, my thinking... they all increase or improve in some way. Problem is, I like the foods I know are bad. I like ice cream... haven't had any in a few months but I want it. Taco bell, mentioned before... Wendy's too... they all offer inexpensive foods even if they are bad for me, cost is a serious consideration these days.
I know what's good for me. But the cards are stacked very much against me. I hold that there needs to be regulation and standards similar to these other "crank" nations who enjoy healthier lives... out of mere coincidence.?
Learn about HFCS and why it is preferred by manufacturers over natural sugar but also why it doesn't work so well within the human body pushing internal organs beyond natural tollerance.
I didn't say only preservatives, however. Nice of you to omit parts of what I said to make it more convenient to draw your incorrect conclusion. Do you follow maps in the same way without getting lost? Diabetes is caused by over consumption. But also by the ingredients in the foods we eat. In countries where many of the ingredients found in foods in the US are banned or limited, they have a much lower rate of diabetes. The very reason for the control over those ingredients is because of their connection with obesity and diabetes. You want to pretend it is about self control. That's not entirely the case. We eat what is available to us. That is the simple truth. While there is ample room for choices, the choices aren't quite so easy.
Personally, I do choose healtheir foods. Salads with one or two meals a day and that's no lie. My wife stays at home and sees to it. I also don't eat bread and pasta too often. My chances of becoming obese and/or diabetes is very slim. But it is largely because I am extremely aware of it. I don't think the ignorance of the masses is their fault and even if it were, we are a collective... a society of humans. Like it or not, we all affect each other. You need to grow beyond your blame of individuals to look at the larger picture of humanity and the factors at play within society.
I think maybe you're reading something more than I've written.
I simply state that any law should help to overcome human nature and behavior while at the same time, not discourage... well... life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. But the fact is, we have laws which do exactly that. We have a legal system which favors incumbant business. We have taxing and incentives and all sorts of things going on which prevent the playing field from ever being level.
There should be no laws against drugs or alcohol. Laws against them are demonstrably ineffective and have led to the creation of crime and extreme criminal behavior that otherwise would not exist.
Will there be murder? Yeah... but not "murder as a part of a business plan" which is what we see in gangs and that sort of thing.
And I don't think markets should be unregulated. Rules should always be in place to ensure that the playing field is fair and even and that the ability to enter the market is not needlessly hindered. A regulated market is, in fact, key to its success and growth. Prior to the great depression, the markets were constantly going up and down causing economic bad times. It's just that the big crash was the one that finally motivated law makers to regulate the market with sanity. And it WORKED. It kept the markets healthy for a very long time. It was only after regulation was relaxed that things started to [predictably] go bad. Because human nature says people will try to get the most of anything they can at the expense of others and even at the expense of the world's economy. I don't have to prove that -- recent history demonstrates it. If you shop for a good price, you also demonstrate it quite nicely. For example, we know what goes into the manufacture of iPhones and Nike shoes. We buy them anyway.
No, they don't... and it's just a thought.
But in general, I think when people are ready to give up on the new version of Windows, they will pirate and old one and/or move to another OS. The options are limited but flavors of Linux like Ubuntu are extremely effective with new users. (I am not an Ubuntu fan. Not at all!)
I'm not predicting doom for Windows and certainly not setting a date. I am extrapolating the more numerous and recent failures Microsoft has had and they are huge. The primary cause is customer dissatisfaction. That's a hard thing for Microsoft to fight back against.
If some enterprising company came out with a technology that blends in with the existing AD networks currently entrenched in today's business and enables tablet and tablet-like machines (think tablets with keyboards) and enables support for Microsoft legacy deployments, things would change faster. The whole BYOD push that has been going on is a major driving factor and opportunity for Android. (Note that it's not for iOS *only* because Apple doesn't want to support [and be liable for] the enterprise.) And for executives, information retreival is the big thing... information creation? Not so much. It would take longer for such things to trickle down to the cube farms.
The "in" is obvious and present. I think at this point, even if Microsoft came out with its own Android series of devices and gave it 100% compatibility with the AD networks and applications out there, people will still view it with great mistrust.
1. Some people still are running Win98SE
2. If WinXP were free, people would likely kick in with their own fixes and updates
Also, if the copyright for Windows XP were turned over to the public domain, I think the source code would ALSO be made available somehow. They could try to keep it to themselves... you know they wouldn't be obligated to publish it anywhere as far as I know... not sure how the library of congress works with regards to all of that, but I get the feeling the code would get leaked somehow.
Oh I completely dig that idea. If it is of no use to you (ie. you aren't selling it) then you have apparently exhausted its value to you as a business. It is now your responsibility under the contract of copyright, to release it to the public domain. But no. "The value" is maintained by keeping it away from the public in order to ensure that they keep buying the same things over and over and over again. This is a public abuse which could only be enabled by copyright law.
So copyright went from the right to copy and distribute to the right to take it away from the public and to withhold information, arts and technology.
I hope people are starting to sit up an take notice. The desire for fulfill the prophesies of Moore's law and to have ever faster and more powerful computing has already exhausted itself. Games are just about as good as they are going to get without new display technologies. The desktop PC has been maxed out and has been resorting to multi-processor and multi-core as the means to keep growing but meanwhile, the primary OS for most people running these systems is still not taking full advantage of even those advances.
So now things are going for lower power, lower operating temperature and all that. What sort of things benefit from that? How about "embedded systems"? Things that people don't want or need to reboot? The current versions of Windows are too bloaty, power and memory hungry to fit within that framework, so it'll have to be another OS. We know this because of the horrible failure "Netbook" computing has been. People wanted it, but expected it to run Windows. Windows couldn't really do it effectively. (I know... people are still doing it... I've still got two netbooks running XP and going strong... but anyone selling XP?) Microsoft shows no remorse over their architectural choices and show no signs of slimming down and getting lighter. So nothing points in Microsoft's direction... not even Microsoft. They are raising prices to make up for the lack of interest in what they are doing now.
Think about what we are seeing.
On one hand, the suits associated with the behaviors past, should happen. They caused damage to consumers and to product makers. But at the same time, it somehow feels like various parties are scraping for extra cash and are seeking what I would consider to be 'last resort' means and methods to get it.
It feels like someone within the upper tiers of the economy know something the rest of us don't (and that would be an economic collapse never seen before in human history) or that this is business as usual and I just never noticed it to this degree before.
I recall the tremors I felt just prior to the most recent collapse. Banks were scrambling for fees and things... charging for every little thing that might be considered a service or courtesy. They knew what was coming and all the signs I saw made perfect sense once things became public. Fortunately, my brother saw it too and shifted his 401K to bonds and stuff like that so he didn't lose out at all.
I see all these legal suits over technology as the precursor to something bigger, hairier and darker. Just not quite sure what it is just yet, but it will achieve some critical mass at some point in the near future I think. The current level of activity is certainly not sustainable.
My children understand me better than my wife does. They are a lot like me in most respects. I see life as a whole bunch of comings and goings. We only "mourn" when we have a body and a certainty that the last time has passed. We don't freak out when we part ways after lunch even if in reality, that might be the last time you see someone alive! So when you take it apart, you realize that the mechanism is based in no small part on the notion that it is final.
I would continue to be able to interact with them and so it would be little different than what we have now. We part ways and spend less time together. The magnitude of physical distance has little bearing on the notion.... only that there is a physical distance. These days, we try to plan time over holidays and stuff. My little one still lives with me though. So it would be best if he were on his own before I go off to Mars right? And between now and then, I hope to express my philosophies in a way that provides a useful framework for him to experience and manage life that works for him as I have with my first two sons.
That's parenting after all.
The thing about suicide missions most people aren't considering is body disposal. There must be an effective and sanitary means of handling the body. It would be nice if they could make soylent green, but at the very least there should be a device which would render a body as "gone" in a clean and sanitary manner. A body disposal bot would be pretty ideal... "bring out your dead... bring out your dead..."
Anyway, I'd be all for it. I have produced three viable offspring and don't plan to produce more. If departure is within the next 20 years, I'll be a perfect candidate for such a mission... I doubt my wife would agree though.