It would still be a problem because Apple shouldn't allow the upgrade to be installed on a device which can't run it properly.
...Then the meme would be "Apple prematurely Orphans Older Models."
IOW, Apple can't win with the Fandroids.
Actually, since Apple is supposed to deliver such a superior user experience, this is a valid criticism, or don't you want people to hold Apple to that higher standard? It really is a myth. I think Apple abuses its most loyal customers worse than Microsoft. And they keep lining up (literally) for more.
You're playing semantic games. I don't think you're actually stupid enough to believe what you wrote. My post obviously referred to the blue fairies creating and then watching over the universe.
You're just trolling because you are intellectually bankrupt.
I watched the entire talk, and what he said comes down to, "it would be a positive thing for atheists to stop being afraid to express their opinions", he referred to some studies showing a positive correlation between higher intelligence and lower religiosity, and pointed out some fallacies in religious dogma, along with criticizing this society's taboo against examining religious belief.
His "militant atheism" is just, "let's talk about this". He didn't espouse removing religious symbols from public spaces, banning bibles in the military, deleting "in god we trust" from currency, banning voluntary prayer in public schools.
What, exactly, made you want to hurl? The fact that his opinions are different than yours? How tolerant. Tell me, which do you think is worse: this talk by Dawkins, or the speech from Paul Broun, a congressman who sits on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, who said that embryology, evolution, and the Big Bang Theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell."?
One thing Dawkins said did make me uncomfortable (though fortunately, it did not induce me to vomit up the contents of my stomach) was about an alleged quote from then Vice President George H.W. Bush, in which he supposedly said that atheists should not be considered patriotic, or even citizens of the U.S. That's a pretty alarming thing to hear from a public servant who took an oath to uphold the constitution.
Do you really think this pitiful protest of Dawkins to balance the institutional bigotry of religion is nauseating?
Nonsense. I and most atheists don't tend to demand any of those things. Notice I said "atheists *tend* not to tell other people what to do". Reading comprehension, it's a good thing.
No one group is homogeneous, and I'm sure there are some people who need to validate their lack of belief by demanding some of those things. But there are far fewer of those in the group of people who hold my opinions than there are people who believe and demand that everyone practice their religious rituals.
And, really, give me some examples where people "demand" the others not use the word Christmas, or stop praying in public, or remove crosses from cemeteries, or ban bibles from the military. That's just silly.
I wouldn't dream of telling you what I think you believe you experienced.
But you can't call it knowledge. Words have meaning. You're using that one incorrectly. It's not knowledge, it's delusion, self-deception, ignorance, naivete, or really, faith. You're entitled to have faith (that is, belief without proof) in anything you like. But you can't tell the rest of us you have some knowledge that we can't examine to confirm or falsify.
"Bend toward simplicity"? Couldn't you have just said "to be simplified"? That seems... simpler.
I believe the submitter was either consciously or unconsciously thinking of this quote by MLK: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."
The grandiosity of conflating a hobbyist OS with one of the great struggles for social justice in the past two centuries is par for the course.
I consider myself an atheist. I believe there is no god, such as the one from the three Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, just in the same way I don't believe that the universe was created and is watched over by an infinite number of tiny, invisible fairies. There is exactly the same amount of evidence for either of those - none.
I keep an open mind about nearly everything, but nothing that organized religion has produced even passes the laugh test.
Atheists will be in for a rude awakening when they die as they will realize that their belief was incomplete
And there you go, claiming knowledge where you cannot have any. Your position is just as absolute as an atheist's, the main difference is that people in your group tend to tell other people what to do, and atheists tend not to tell people what to do.
Keep saying it's the people's fault, and they'll keep squeezing until they find your particular threshold.
Which is an argument ethically akin to car companies knowing they have a potentially fatal defect but weighing up the cost of actually fixing it and saving lives vs. the expected cost of compensation lawsuits and not fixing it if the latter is lower.
The solution, of course, is to structure the law and/or regulate the industry so that the cost of screwing people unreasonably is always substantially greater than the cost of behaving more appropriately.
I didn't say that, and don't agree. Regulation and fines are appropriate for safety issues, but this article was about the size of the seats. None of the arguments were about the squeezing of seats into planes causing a hazard that rises to the need for government safety oversight.
Most of the discussion, and my post specifically, are about how customers either will or won't acquiesce to this treatment. The gp was inclined to simply accept what the airlines are doing, mine was not - customers should vote with their dollars, with public campaigns, with boycotts, until they are treated reasonably. I don't agree the government is the solution here.
Wow, the AC beat me to it with an excellent reply. I'll just add that while I would never say that *you* are the *sole* justification airline execs use in making these awful decisions, you're definitely part of it. Keep saying it's the people's fault, and they'll keep squeezing until they find your particular threshold.
Yeah, yeah, governments collude with industry, and rich white people ride on top, but please retreat a step or two from tinfoil hat country. You imply a cure is being withheld, whereas the WHO is actively working on a vaccine now, and is selecting the best treatments to apply.
Lower levels of funding are *not* the same as withholding a cure. One is related to self-interest, and the other is conspiracy to let people die.
You want to shut down all travels from Africa when only 4 countries have a significant number of Ebola case? You have no idea of the size of Africa, do you?
Well, be fair. I believe the AC posting above is former half-term governor Sarah "Winky" Palin. You know, who referred to Africa as a country.
Or possibly the AC is Rep Tom Marino (R, naturally), who criticized the president about Libya, saying, "Where does it stop? Do we go into Africa next?"
"I have personally dated 3 women who have both beaten me, stole from me, and cheated on me..."... Don't see how that makes me a "privileged conservative white man."
Not even a marginally educated man. Re-read that first sentence you wrote, and you tell us what's wrong with it.
No one in either party's base gives a fuck about the gender or orientation of the holder of some office they've never heard of and will never care about. Maybe a few geeks care about this? Maybe?
No position or issue is too obscure for congress and their PR agency, Fox News, to use as ammunition against the president.
Contrary to what many, especially Americans, think, you cannot win a war. The "winners" are simply the last ones standing, whether they have lost arms legs or heads.
We still lost the war, like every other participating country.
It's not that I disagree, it's that you are demonstrably wrong.
Which countries redrew borders in the Middle East after World War I? Germany? Guess again. Did Germany voluntarily pay reparations? No.
Which country dominated the world in trade and influence after World War II? Again, not Germany, Italy, Japan, etc. It was the "winner", the U.S.
If you are making the point that even the winners were worse off after the war, I'd have to disagree. The U.S. was booming within a few years. If you argue that the world as a whole was worse off after, for example World War II, tell me, do you think it would have been better to let Germany continue its policy of lebensraum, or two fight the war?
I avoid violence whenever possible, it sickens me. But I cannot deny that it sure solves lots of problems.
Coincidentally, I was thinking yesterday about whether observers may determine the state to which wave forms collapse (was it Heisenberg that proposed that?). It's very appealing, but disturbing, because I don't really believe observers have any special role in the universe.
Maybe I'll just stop thinking about this stuff for a little bit. This doesn't really answer your question, but I like Mark Twain's quote, "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”
Well, I wouldn't dare dispute your observations from when you were just out of school. As any schoolboy knows (if you'll pardon the expression), lack of any experience in the world whatsoever is a crucial ingredient for drawing intelligent conclusions.
I have worked in a dozen industries with scores of companies. Your Pollyanna world where companies prioritize what's right instead of what's profitable just doesn't exist. To the extent that your medical device company produced quality components, it is because of the knowledge that the government would come after them if they did otherwise.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Government intervention after the crisis began in 2008 prevented a global depression.
Maybe stupid people have the impression that government got in the way of the recovery because most of the pain occurred after 2008, when it was too late to prevent much of the damage, but that doesn't mean it isn't foolish to think government made it worse.
Slashdot Mirror
It would still be a problem because Apple shouldn't allow the upgrade to be installed on a device which can't run it properly.
...Then the meme would be "Apple prematurely Orphans Older Models." IOW, Apple can't win with the Fandroids.
Actually, since Apple is supposed to deliver such a superior user experience, this is a valid criticism, or don't you want people to hold Apple to that higher standard? It really is a myth. I think Apple abuses its most loyal customers worse than Microsoft. And they keep lining up (literally) for more.
You're playing semantic games. I don't think you're actually stupid enough to believe what you wrote. My post obviously referred to the blue fairies creating and then watching over the universe.
You're just trolling because you are intellectually bankrupt.
I watched the entire talk, and what he said comes down to, "it would be a positive thing for atheists to stop being afraid to express their opinions", he referred to some studies showing a positive correlation between higher intelligence and lower religiosity, and pointed out some fallacies in religious dogma, along with criticizing this society's taboo against examining religious belief.
His "militant atheism" is just, "let's talk about this". He didn't espouse removing religious symbols from public spaces, banning bibles in the military, deleting "in god we trust" from currency, banning voluntary prayer in public schools.
What, exactly, made you want to hurl? The fact that his opinions are different than yours? How tolerant. Tell me, which do you think is worse: this talk by Dawkins, or the speech from Paul Broun, a congressman who sits on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, who said that embryology, evolution, and the Big Bang Theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell."?
One thing Dawkins said did make me uncomfortable (though fortunately, it did not induce me to vomit up the contents of my stomach) was about an alleged quote from then Vice President George H.W. Bush, in which he supposedly said that atheists should not be considered patriotic, or even citizens of the U.S. That's a pretty alarming thing to hear from a public servant who took an oath to uphold the constitution.
Do you really think this pitiful protest of Dawkins to balance the institutional bigotry of religion is nauseating?
Nonsense. I and most atheists don't tend to demand any of those things. Notice I said "atheists *tend* not to tell other people what to do". Reading comprehension, it's a good thing.
No one group is homogeneous, and I'm sure there are some people who need to validate their lack of belief by demanding some of those things. But there are far fewer of those in the group of people who hold my opinions than there are people who believe and demand that everyone practice their religious rituals.
And, really, give me some examples where people "demand" the others not use the word Christmas, or stop praying in public, or remove crosses from cemeteries, or ban bibles from the military. That's just silly.
I wouldn't dream of telling you what I think you believe you experienced.
But you can't call it knowledge. Words have meaning. You're using that one incorrectly. It's not knowledge, it's delusion, self-deception, ignorance, naivete, or really, faith. You're entitled to have faith (that is, belief without proof) in anything you like. But you can't tell the rest of us you have some knowledge that we can't examine to confirm or falsify.
KDE's UI To Bend Toward Simplicity
"Bend toward simplicity"? Couldn't you have just said "to be simplified"? That seems... simpler.
I believe the submitter was either consciously or unconsciously thinking of this quote by MLK: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."
The grandiosity of conflating a hobbyist OS with one of the great struggles for social justice in the past two centuries is par for the course.
I consider myself an atheist. I believe there is no god, such as the one from the three Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, just in the same way I don't believe that the universe was created and is watched over by an infinite number of tiny, invisible fairies. There is exactly the same amount of evidence for either of those - none.
I keep an open mind about nearly everything, but nothing that organized religion has produced even passes the laugh test.
Atheists will be in for a rude awakening when they die as they will realize that their belief was incomplete
And there you go, claiming knowledge where you cannot have any. Your position is just as absolute as an atheist's, the main difference is that people in your group tend to tell other people what to do, and atheists tend not to tell people what to do.
Also, atheists are more fun.
Keep saying it's the people's fault, and they'll keep squeezing until they find your particular threshold.
Which is an argument ethically akin to car companies knowing they have a potentially fatal defect but weighing up the cost of actually fixing it and saving lives vs. the expected cost of compensation lawsuits and not fixing it if the latter is lower.
The solution, of course, is to structure the law and/or regulate the industry so that the cost of screwing people unreasonably is always substantially greater than the cost of behaving more appropriately.
I didn't say that, and don't agree. Regulation and fines are appropriate for safety issues, but this article was about the size of the seats. None of the arguments were about the squeezing of seats into planes causing a hazard that rises to the need for government safety oversight.
Most of the discussion, and my post specifically, are about how customers either will or won't acquiesce to this treatment. The gp was inclined to simply accept what the airlines are doing, mine was not - customers should vote with their dollars, with public campaigns, with boycotts, until they are treated reasonably. I don't agree the government is the solution here.
This is the finest troll I've seen in at least a month.
Kudos, Anonymous Coward!
Wow, the AC beat me to it with an excellent reply. I'll just add that while I would never say that *you* are the *sole* justification airline execs use in making these awful decisions, you're definitely part of it. Keep saying it's the people's fault, and they'll keep squeezing until they find your particular threshold.
Get over your butt hurt, or move on. It's really pretty simple.
Yeah, I remember that original Popeye cartoon. That line seemed funny then, but I was 6.
Yeah, yeah, governments collude with industry, and rich white people ride on top, but please retreat a step or two from tinfoil hat country. You imply a cure is being withheld, whereas the WHO is actively working on a vaccine now, and is selecting the best treatments to apply.
Lower levels of funding are *not* the same as withholding a cure. One is related to self-interest, and the other is conspiracy to let people die.
You want to shut down all travels from Africa when only 4 countries have a significant number of Ebola case? You have no idea of the size of Africa, do you?
Well, be fair. I believe the AC posting above is former half-term governor Sarah "Winky" Palin. You know, who referred to Africa as a country.
Or possibly the AC is Rep Tom Marino (R, naturally), who criticized the president about Libya, saying, "Where does it stop? Do we go into Africa next?"
Proud to a 'murican!
Wow, your deliberate obtuseness is sooo cute!
Aww, your deliberate obtuseness is sooo cute!
"I have personally dated 3 women who have both beaten me, stole from me, and cheated on me..."... Don't see how that makes me a "privileged conservative white man."
Not even a marginally educated man. Re-read that first sentence you wrote, and you tell us what's wrong with it.
No one in either party's base gives a fuck about the gender or orientation of the holder of some office they've never heard of and will never care about. Maybe a few geeks care about this? Maybe?
No position or issue is too obscure for congress and their PR agency, Fox News, to use as ammunition against the president.
Well, these days, it's the lefties who poison the well of every issue with race and sex to justify passing laws that legislate privilege;
Since she's gay, I would assume what you're ranting about in this case is the "privilege" of being allowed to marry the person you love.
Nice.
Contrary to what many, especially Americans, think, you cannot win a war. The "winners" are simply the last ones standing, whether they have lost arms legs or heads. We still lost the war, like every other participating country.
It's not that I disagree, it's that you are demonstrably wrong.
Which countries redrew borders in the Middle East after World War I? Germany? Guess again. Did Germany voluntarily pay reparations? No.
Which country dominated the world in trade and influence after World War II? Again, not Germany, Italy, Japan, etc. It was the "winner", the U.S.
If you are making the point that even the winners were worse off after the war, I'd have to disagree. The U.S. was booming within a few years. If you argue that the world as a whole was worse off after, for example World War II, tell me, do you think it would have been better to let Germany continue its policy of lebensraum, or two fight the war?
I avoid violence whenever possible, it sickens me. But I cannot deny that it sure solves lots of problems.
Coincidentally, I was thinking yesterday about whether observers may determine the state to which wave forms collapse (was it Heisenberg that proposed that?). It's very appealing, but disturbing, because I don't really believe observers have any special role in the universe.
Maybe I'll just stop thinking about this stuff for a little bit. This doesn't really answer your question, but I like Mark Twain's quote, "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”
Well, I wouldn't dare dispute your observations from when you were just out of school. As any schoolboy knows (if you'll pardon the expression), lack of any experience in the world whatsoever is a crucial ingredient for drawing intelligent conclusions.
I have worked in a dozen industries with scores of companies. Your Pollyanna world where companies prioritize what's right instead of what's profitable just doesn't exist. To the extent that your medical device company produced quality components, it is because of the knowledge that the government would come after them if they did otherwise.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Government intervention after the crisis began in 2008 prevented a global depression.
Maybe stupid people have the impression that government got in the way of the recovery because most of the pain occurred after 2008, when it was too late to prevent much of the damage, but that doesn't mean it isn't foolish to think government made it worse.
Where DO you get your information?
I love that reaction - "they fucked up - but they did it so well!"
:-)
At least I don't have to ask what you think of Fukushima.