Ah yes, country X doing better than USA as measured by statistic Y ? Of course the statistic must be false!
The statistic is actually right: the violent crime rate is lower in Japan than in the US. Your error is in assuming that that's automatically a good thing.
There are many statistics on which the US is clearly better than other nations. We make different tradeoffs from Europe and Japan. But some politicians like to tell the lie that we can have all the benefits that Europe and Japan gain through their policies without paying the steep cost they are paying.
USA! USA! USA!
Yup. I have live in Europe and Asia, and I don't want the US to turn into them.
A project with limited resources doesn't have a prayer beating existing, highly optimized memory managers. And by writing their own, they actually ended up being less secure, because many standard memory managers would have prevented Heartbleed.
But most of the product ideas he copied were already discarded by the company that invented them as useless toys with no market potential.
I can't think of any major Apple product where that was true. It certainly wasn't true for Mac, OS X, iPod, iPhone, or iPad.
That does deserve some credit as innovation.
Jobs clearly was smart and a good businessman. He also had good taste in design. But the question I think we should be asking: do we want others to emulate him, and I think the answer should be a resounding "no".
Except that when pancreatic cancer manifests itself, it's already too late.
Probably not in his case:
Steve Jobs had a mild form of cancer that is not usually fatal, but seems to have ushered along his own death by delaying conventional treatment in favor of alternative remedies, a Harvard Medical School researcher and faculty member says. Jobs's intractability, so often his greatest asset, may have been his undoing.
And:
According to a 2008 Fortune article, Jobs for nine months pursued "alternative methods to treat his pancreatic cancer, hoping to avoid [an] operation through a special diet." The Buddhist vegetarian took this approach from the time he was diagnosed in October 2003 until at least the end of July 2004, when he underwent surgery at Stanford University Medical Center.
I'm a small government kind of guy and I'm not sure what Jobs did should have been illegal. I still believe that Jobs was a jerk and an imitator, not an "innovator" in any sense of the word. He pretty much said himself that his skill was in identifying the best things to "steal" (his word) from his competitors.
In addition, Apple probably wouldn't exist without "big government", since much of their success and much of their power is based on using artificial monopolies and the threat of lawsuits based on dubious and non-innovative intellectual property.
He was going to die. And he knew it. So he was able to take risks that no one else was going to take.
That's not what happened. His cancer was likely easily treatable and curable when it was discovered. But Jobs refused "conventional treatment" and went for a "holistic approach". By the time he went back to regular doctors, many months later, it was too late. And instead of the heroic dying hero you try to make him out as, there is fairly little he accomplished after that.
That doesn't work when the URL is long relative to the text entry box: you'll see what appears to be the entire host name in black and no gray at all. In fact, for a narrower window, there is no difference between "passwordreset.bankofamerica.com.34234.com/?=customerpasswordreset&34234" and "passwordreset.bankofamerica.com/?=customerpasswordreset&34234", because all you see is "passwordreset.bankofamerica.com".
Not in Chome on Linux. It just goes to a regular web page (a domain parking page) with no warning, displaying a URL that starts with "passwordreset.bankofamerica.com". To see that it isn't legit, you have to notice that there is no ":" between the apparent host name and the number that follows it.
Phishing URLs are deliberately constructed to be confusable. Being an expert doesn't protect you because you aren't going to spend several seconds carefully examining every URL you visit.
That's true for non-malicious sites. But a malicious site will deliberately construct a URL that misleads you about the site. By showing you only the "origin chip", Google is trying to make sure you see what site the browser actually takes you to, not the site that the URL visually suggests. Furthermore, for secure sites, they base it on the certificate, rather than the URL.
They simply are showing you different information by default, information that is more relevant to most users: the identity of the site that you are at, instead of the URL used to take you there. That's not an "extra layer of crap", it's a choice to show you something different and more useful by default.
Oh, OpenSSL desperately needs money, as well as programmers
If they need money and programmers, why are they wasting time and effort implementing OpenSSL extensions people don't actually need? Why are they wasting their time writing their own memory manager? Why are they writing in plain C?
Heartbleed was the result of someone adding an optional and useless feature to OpenSSL that should never have been added in the first place. That's not a problem with having insufficient resources, it's a problem with poor management.
If it has anything to do with resources, it's a sign that people on the project have too much free time on their hands, because if there had been anything important to be done, people wouldn't have the time to add this feature.
Romney didn't "invent" the individual mandate. Individual mandates exist in many places in Europe. They're fairly reasonable. But whether they work or not depends on the details.
Obama's plan ended up being a gigantic handout to corporate America. Face it, the Obama administration is both deeply corrupt and incompetent. And I say that as someone who actually voted for the guy.
Socialism is inherently incompatible with individual liberty. That makes it evil for people who believe that individual liberty is an intrinsic human right.
They "embraced" a preliminary version of something that was somewhat similar to "Obamacare". That's not the same as embracing Obamacare.
Fact is that Republicans universally rejected Obamacare and that it was exclusively designed and implemented by Democrats. Democrats are the only ones responsible for it.
The Constitution doesn't enumerate the rights of citizens, the Constitution enumerates the (very limited) powers of the federal government.
So, since the Constitution has "zero mention" of a governmental power to take away people's bank accounts, the federal government does not have that power.
True, but these substances are nothing new just because we now call them "nano-scale materials". We're basically talking about soot, have understood its dangers for a long time now, and even have monitoring and exposure limits in place. The same can be said for many other "nano-scale materials".
Nonsense. I haven't been in a cell phone contract in more than 15 years. In addition to lots of small providers, AT&T's GoPhone has always worked with BYOD phones. And you could BYOD for Sprint as well (bring and take from the other resellers).
Being told you're not allowed to operate a drone for commercial purposes doesn't mean your press freedom is being restricted. It means you cannot operate a drone for commercial purposes due to safety regulations.
If you can do it for non-commercial purposes but not for commercial purposes, that shows that it isn't "due to safety regulations".
Has America completely lost its grasp of the difference between what you're "free" to do, and what is (and should be) regulated?
The federal government has only authority to regulate interstate commerce. Is flying drones into a tornado related to interstate commerce? No. Hence it should not a federal government issue. Furthermore, prohibiting this activity isn't just working out the details of some law (which is what regulators are supposed to do), it's an entirely new restriction that should require an act of Congress.
The press bitching they can't do illegal things in the pursuit of news (which these days is whatever is most salacious to get ratings) is the same thing -- your press freedom doesn't supercede laws.
Regulations are not the same thing as laws. Yes, people should complain when unelected federal bureaucrats decide for no good reason to restrict what Americans can do.
I keep hearing conservatives whine about how their freedom of speech is being infringed because there are consequences to the shit they say.
Are they proposing laws against those consequences? No. They are merely exercising their right to free speech in response to other people exercising their right to free speech. That's how free speech works.
You seem to have trouble understanding what free speech means, and you seem to have trouble understanding the basics of government. More disconcerting, you seem to be ignorant of history and how government restrictions on press and free speech have always been justified with "public safety". It's good to see that Americans aren't quite as ignorant and complacent as you seem to be.
The problem isn't that asbestos fibers are damaging to DNA (lots of things are), it's that they are chemically inert and can't be eliminated by the cells. Carbon nanotubes are degraded by cells, and fairly quickly.
Your statements are (very) twisted truth rather than ignorance,
Trying to present Europe as a benign and enlightened continent against a backwards US is a ridiculous attempt at rewriting history. Yes, Britain banned slavery at home, a gesture that cost it almost nothing, while exploiting, enslaving, oppressing, and mass murdering people in its colonies for more than a century. France, Germany, and the Netherlands were even worse. Feudalism and indentured servitude, for all practical purposes slavery, also existed well into the 19th century in parts of Europe. And European nations and their citizens were massively racist, anti-Semitic, and intolerant of minorities until after WWII, and under a thin veneer of tolerance, they really still are.
The morals and ethics of the US at the time of its formation are not the same as the morals and ethics of the present day.
You're right: the US has become a much more moral, much less racist, and much more tolerant society over the last two centuries. And it has dragged Europe along kicking and screaming. Oh, Europe has had plenty of intellectuals talk about the rights of man and liberty and tolerance, but in practice, Europe has largely been governed by the aristocracy, socialists, imperialists, colonialists, communists, dictators, oligarchs, and fascists.
Slashdot Mirror
The statistic is actually right: the violent crime rate is lower in Japan than in the US. Your error is in assuming that that's automatically a good thing.
There are many statistics on which the US is clearly better than other nations. We make different tradeoffs from Europe and Japan. But some politicians like to tell the lie that we can have all the benefits that Europe and Japan gain through their policies without paying the steep cost they are paying.
Yup. I have live in Europe and Asia, and I don't want the US to turn into them.
A project with limited resources doesn't have a prayer beating existing, highly optimized memory managers. And by writing their own, they actually ended up being less secure, because many standard memory managers would have prevented Heartbleed.
I can't think of any major Apple product where that was true. It certainly wasn't true for Mac, OS X, iPod, iPhone, or iPad.
Jobs clearly was smart and a good businessman. He also had good taste in design. But the question I think we should be asking: do we want others to emulate him, and I think the answer should be a resounding "no".
Isn't that the county of hanging chads? Sounds like payback to me.
The GP said nothing about Jobs being a "giant cunt".
And "Guy knows he is going to die, takes on impossible risks, and wins big." is a classic heroic trope.
I'm sorry if a more realistic view of Jobs and Apple bothers you.
Probably not in his case:
And:
http://gawker.com/5849543/harv...
Jobs didn't put pieces together into something new, he copied both the pieces and the entire product idea.
I'm a small government kind of guy and I'm not sure what Jobs did should have been illegal. I still believe that Jobs was a jerk and an imitator, not an "innovator" in any sense of the word. He pretty much said himself that his skill was in identifying the best things to "steal" (his word) from his competitors.
In addition, Apple probably wouldn't exist without "big government", since much of their success and much of their power is based on using artificial monopolies and the threat of lawsuits based on dubious and non-innovative intellectual property.
That's not what happened. His cancer was likely easily treatable and curable when it was discovered. But Jobs refused "conventional treatment" and went for a "holistic approach". By the time he went back to regular doctors, many months later, it was too late. And instead of the heroic dying hero you try to make him out as, there is fairly little he accomplished after that.
Jobs did "think different" and it killed him.
That doesn't work when the URL is long relative to the text entry box: you'll see what appears to be the entire host name in black and no gray at all. In fact, for a narrower window, there is no difference between "passwordreset.bankofamerica.com.34234.com/?=customerpasswordreset&34234" and "passwordreset.bankofamerica.com/?=customerpasswordreset&34234", because all you see is "passwordreset.bankofamerica.com".
Not in Chome on Linux. It just goes to a regular web page (a domain parking page) with no warning, displaying a URL that starts with "passwordreset.bankofamerica.com". To see that it isn't legit, you have to notice that there is no ":" between the apparent host name and the number that follows it.
Phishing URLs are deliberately constructed to be confusable. Being an expert doesn't protect you because you aren't going to spend several seconds carefully examining every URL you visit.
That's true for non-malicious sites. But a malicious site will deliberately construct a URL that misleads you about the site. By showing you only the "origin chip", Google is trying to make sure you see what site the browser actually takes you to, not the site that the URL visually suggests. Furthermore, for secure sites, they base it on the certificate, rather than the URL.
They simply are showing you different information by default, information that is more relevant to most users: the identity of the site that you are at, instead of the URL used to take you there. That's not an "extra layer of crap", it's a choice to show you something different and more useful by default.
If they need money and programmers, why are they wasting time and effort implementing OpenSSL extensions people don't actually need? Why are they wasting their time writing their own memory manager? Why are they writing in plain C?
Heartbleed was the result of someone adding an optional and useless feature to OpenSSL that should never have been added in the first place. That's not a problem with having insufficient resources, it's a problem with poor management.
If it has anything to do with resources, it's a sign that people on the project have too much free time on their hands, because if there had been anything important to be done, people wouldn't have the time to add this feature.
Romney didn't "invent" the individual mandate. Individual mandates exist in many places in Europe. They're fairly reasonable. But whether they work or not depends on the details.
Obama's plan ended up being a gigantic handout to corporate America. Face it, the Obama administration is both deeply corrupt and incompetent. And I say that as someone who actually voted for the guy.
Socialism is inherently incompatible with individual liberty. That makes it evil for people who believe that individual liberty is an intrinsic human right.
They "embraced" a preliminary version of something that was somewhat similar to "Obamacare". That's not the same as embracing Obamacare.
Fact is that Republicans universally rejected Obamacare and that it was exclusively designed and implemented by Democrats. Democrats are the only ones responsible for it.
The Constitution doesn't enumerate the rights of citizens, the Constitution enumerates the (very limited) powers of the federal government.
So, since the Constitution has "zero mention" of a governmental power to take away people's bank accounts, the federal government does not have that power.
"Nice bank you have there. Wouldn't it be a shame if we had to shut you down and audit you and your best customers for the next six months?"
"Now, here is a list of people we think you better not do business with. Any questions?"
True, but these substances are nothing new just because we now call them "nano-scale materials". We're basically talking about soot, have understood its dangers for a long time now, and even have monitoring and exposure limits in place. The same can be said for many other "nano-scale materials".
Nonsense. I haven't been in a cell phone contract in more than 15 years. In addition to lots of small providers, AT&T's GoPhone has always worked with BYOD phones. And you could BYOD for Sprint as well (bring and take from the other resellers).
If you can do it for non-commercial purposes but not for commercial purposes, that shows that it isn't "due to safety regulations".
The federal government has only authority to regulate interstate commerce. Is flying drones into a tornado related to interstate commerce? No. Hence it should not a federal government issue. Furthermore, prohibiting this activity isn't just working out the details of some law (which is what regulators are supposed to do), it's an entirely new restriction that should require an act of Congress.
Regulations are not the same thing as laws. Yes, people should complain when unelected federal bureaucrats decide for no good reason to restrict what Americans can do.
Are they proposing laws against those consequences? No. They are merely exercising their right to free speech in response to other people exercising their right to free speech. That's how free speech works.
You seem to have trouble understanding what free speech means, and you seem to have trouble understanding the basics of government. More disconcerting, you seem to be ignorant of history and how government restrictions on press and free speech have always been justified with "public safety". It's good to see that Americans aren't quite as ignorant and complacent as you seem to be.
The problem isn't that asbestos fibers are damaging to DNA (lots of things are), it's that they are chemically inert and can't be eliminated by the cells. Carbon nanotubes are degraded by cells, and fairly quickly.
Trying to present Europe as a benign and enlightened continent against a backwards US is a ridiculous attempt at rewriting history. Yes, Britain banned slavery at home, a gesture that cost it almost nothing, while exploiting, enslaving, oppressing, and mass murdering people in its colonies for more than a century. France, Germany, and the Netherlands were even worse. Feudalism and indentured servitude, for all practical purposes slavery, also existed well into the 19th century in parts of Europe. And European nations and their citizens were massively racist, anti-Semitic, and intolerant of minorities until after WWII, and under a thin veneer of tolerance, they really still are.
You're right: the US has become a much more moral, much less racist, and much more tolerant society over the last two centuries. And it has dragged Europe along kicking and screaming. Oh, Europe has had plenty of intellectuals talk about the rights of man and liberty and tolerance, but in practice, Europe has largely been governed by the aristocracy, socialists, imperialists, colonialists, communists, dictators, oligarchs, and fascists.