And again, you're still full of shit. And it's unlikely that you'll ever stop being full of shit, because you've already made up your mind about the liberal boogyman.
So, let's see, because many politicians who claim to be conservative end up doing what the progressive politicians said they would do in the same situation, I should support the progressive politicians who, despite saying that they want to take away my freedoms, will act against their self-interest and actually defend my freedoms?
I didn't say you should do anything. I said you were full of shit.
So what you appear to be saying (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you don't accept any attempt to predict climate as science. One presumes, then, that the only thing you will accept is post-facto empirical observations.
No, conservatives seek to limit government to the minimum amount of power necessary to keep society functioning. Unfortunately, there are many politicians who claim to be conservatives, and manage to appeal to conservatives by careful marketing, who seek to expand their power and thus the power of government.
So in other words, none of the so-called conservatives actually behave in the way that you think they ought to, but it never dawned on you that if that's what all the conservatives do, then that's probably the de-facto definition of conservative. Meanwhile, you ascribe a ridiculous set of beliefs onto liberals, but it never dawns on you that what you think liberals are is in fact just some made-up crap that so-called conservatives like to believe about liberals to make their own heartless existence more tolerable.
Or, put another way, you're completely full of shit.
Progressive policies are those which seek to establish control over all aspects of people's lives by experts who know better what those people really want and need than those people do themselves.
That's complete bullshit and you know it. Progressive policies are those which seek to keep corporations from screwing the people. Anyone who says otherwise is a conservative trying to spin the story.
The real problem lies with people who have the mentality that we should be even attempt to code 3D FPS games on devices that were designed to make phone calls and occasionally surf the web.
A tablet or cell phone is not a gaming machine. "Smartphone" is an oxymoron. And the only people trying to convince you otherwise are the people selling them.
FFS, get over it. It's 2012. Your fantasy about these being incapable devices ceased to be convincing three years ago.
It turned out quite well, actually. And it's a myth that paying a dividend hinders a company's growth prospects.
Oh, and not to be a negative nancy, but no, this is also false. Microsoft's stock price has been abysmal for the last ten years, and they have utterly failed to break any new ground whatsoever during that same period. It would be easy to blame the corporate management (i.e. Steve Ballmer) for that failure, and he certainly deserves the lion's share of the blame. But the point is that their dividend payments did absolutely nothing to further their products, their market cap, or their relevance to the computer industry as a whole. And now their $70B is scattered to the winds of stockholders.
Nope. It belongs to the corporation, who are governed by a board, who are elected by the stockholders. To say the stockholders own the cash is to deeply misunderstand the process.
I think you're being naive. If whatever you're typing on was made in the last 10 years, the chances that it was made under the same (or worse) conditions than those at FoxConn are pretty good.
I never really understood the objection to loosely-typed or untyped languages. I go back and forth between C/C++ and PHP and Javascript all the time, and it never even phased me.
The key to dealing with untyped languages is to focus not on what you have, but what you need. If you absolutely have to have an integer, not a string carrying a series of numbers, make it an integer and use it. If you need a string and a number won't do, make it a string. Stop focusing on the correctness of the typing and just focus on what you need at that particular point in the code.
By the same token, this is identical to the advice I give to beginning programmers struggling with C pointers. Stop focusing on Lvalue / Rvalue and just focus on what you have and what you need. If you have a pointer and you need the value, prefix with an asterisk. If you have a value and you need a pointer, put an ampersand in front of it. It's really that simple.
If you're going to switch over the whole system, and require new engines to get any benefit, you might as well just go straight to hydrogen and stop dicking around with this ethanol crap.
But since neither is going to happen any time soon, the point is moot.
But more to the point, the logical connection is not that hard to fathom, and has even been stated as such on more than one occasion. The essence of Flash for most developers is an easy way to create something that works equally on all platforms. The flaw with that, of course, is that it leads quickly to a lowest-common-denominator situation where advanced features aren't widely taken advantage of. On top of that, access to those features is gated by Adobe, essentially putting a third party between Apple and any Flash developers that actually wanted to take advantage of the advanced features the iPhone possessed.
The logical connection, if you really need it spelled out, is that access to a "good enough" development platform that works (i.e. Flash) is often a barrier to the adoption of a great development platform. By banning Flash from the iPhone, it forced a large (and fairly successful) development community to come into existence out of seemingly nowhere.
Put another way, Apple didn't want Flash to become the de facto development environment of the iPhone. Doing so would have placed Apple at a competitive disadvantage, with Adobe in charge. The fact that Apple acted in its own best interests shouldn't really be surprising.
And to those of you who ignore this sleight of hand and argue that Apple must do whatever it can to restore a sense of childlike wonder and superior design to humanity: shut up, you stupid fanboy zombies. Brains like yours are the reason we have the politicians we have.
Through history, there are very few instances where this approach has won an actual debate.
Yup. My previous generation Android phone had voice search and command input (as does my current one). Damned annoying. Its the first thing I turn off.
There are two possible explanations for this.
1) Voice recognition on phones is useless, has always been useless, and will always be useless, forever, whether it be from Apple, Android, or Taco Bell. 2) The two things you're equating are not actually the same thing.
I think it's a mistake to say that "It didn't work on Android, so Siri must be shit". But hey, that's just my opinion.
Walking around, or sitting on the train, talking to my mobile, viewing the response, looking like an ass - none of this adds up to the experience I was hoping to have - which is that all data flows from my brain onto the device which presents the results to my visual cortex without having to interact with anything at all.
Let me know when they are done making that one work.
When they do, someone will undoubtedly come along and make specious claims that Android has had that for years. This will of course require that one overlook the fact that the path to the visual cortex is actually via "displaying words and images on a screen in front of the person's eyes", but this really just amounts to quibbling over semantics.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like he hit a nerve.
That's among the most retarded things I've heard all week.
And again, you're still full of shit. And it's unlikely that you'll ever stop being full of shit, because you've already made up your mind about the liberal boogyman.
So, let's see, because many politicians who claim to be conservative end up doing what the progressive politicians said they would do in the same situation, I should support the progressive politicians who, despite saying that they want to take away my freedoms, will act against their self-interest and actually defend my freedoms?
I didn't say you should do anything. I said you were full of shit.
So what you appear to be saying (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you don't accept any attempt to predict climate as science. One presumes, then, that the only thing you will accept is post-facto empirical observations.
Is that correct?
No, conservatives seek to limit government to the minimum amount of power necessary to keep society functioning. Unfortunately, there are many politicians who claim to be conservatives, and manage to appeal to conservatives by careful marketing, who seek to expand their power and thus the power of government.
So in other words, none of the so-called conservatives actually behave in the way that you think they ought to, but it never dawned on you that if that's what all the conservatives do, then that's probably the de-facto definition of conservative. Meanwhile, you ascribe a ridiculous set of beliefs onto liberals, but it never dawns on you that what you think liberals are is in fact just some made-up crap that so-called conservatives like to believe about liberals to make their own heartless existence more tolerable.
Or, put another way, you're completely full of shit.
Progressive policies are those which seek to establish control over all aspects of people's lives by experts who know better what those people really want and need than those people do themselves.
That's complete bullshit and you know it. Progressive policies are those which seek to keep corporations from screwing the people. Anyone who says otherwise is a conservative trying to spin the story.
LOL! Anonymous Coward is a Coward!
Ah no, that is also not the real problem.
The real problem lies with people who have the mentality that we should be even attempt to code 3D FPS games on devices that were designed to make phone calls and occasionally surf the web.
A tablet or cell phone is not a gaming machine. "Smartphone" is an oxymoron. And the only people trying to convince you otherwise are the people selling them.
FFS, get over it. It's 2012. Your fantasy about these being incapable devices ceased to be convincing three years ago.
It turned out quite well, actually. And it's a myth that paying a dividend hinders a company's growth prospects.
Oh, and not to be a negative nancy, but no, this is also false. Microsoft's stock price has been abysmal for the last ten years, and they have utterly failed to break any new ground whatsoever during that same period. It would be easy to blame the corporate management (i.e. Steve Ballmer) for that failure, and he certainly deserves the lion's share of the blame. But the point is that their dividend payments did absolutely nothing to further their products, their market cap, or their relevance to the computer industry as a whole. And now their $70B is scattered to the winds of stockholders.
Pointless, if you ask me.
That cash belongs to the stockholders, for one.
Nope. It belongs to the corporation, who are governed by a board, who are elected by the stockholders. To say the stockholders own the cash is to deeply misunderstand the process.
It happened to Microsoft.
And Microsoft was pressured into paying dividends as well.
You can see how well that turned out.
You're probably not the target market, then.
Which says nothing of the viability of such a device.
You sound a lot like the slashdotters of yesteryear who insisted (vociferously) that all they wanted was a phone that made phone calls.
This too shall pass.
I think you're being naive. If whatever you're typing on was made in the last 10 years, the chances that it was made under the same (or worse) conditions than those at FoxConn are pretty good.
I never really understood the objection to loosely-typed or untyped languages. I go back and forth between C/C++ and PHP and Javascript all the time, and it never even phased me.
The key to dealing with untyped languages is to focus not on what you have, but what you need. If you absolutely have to have an integer, not a string carrying a series of numbers, make it an integer and use it. If you need a string and a number won't do, make it a string. Stop focusing on the correctness of the typing and just focus on what you need at that particular point in the code.
By the same token, this is identical to the advice I give to beginning programmers struggling with C pointers. Stop focusing on Lvalue / Rvalue and just focus on what you have and what you need. If you have a pointer and you need the value, prefix with an asterisk. If you have a value and you need a pointer, put an ampersand in front of it. It's really that simple.
If you're going to switch over the whole system, and require new engines to get any benefit, you might as well just go straight to hydrogen and stop dicking around with this ethanol crap.
But since neither is going to happen any time soon, the point is moot.
You're far to clever for government.
No, I think that kind of overly complicated system makes him eminently qualified for a position in a government bureaucracy.
But more to the point, the logical connection is not that hard to fathom, and has even been stated as such on more than one occasion. The essence of Flash for most developers is an easy way to create something that works equally on all platforms. The flaw with that, of course, is that it leads quickly to a lowest-common-denominator situation where advanced features aren't widely taken advantage of. On top of that, access to those features is gated by Adobe, essentially putting a third party between Apple and any Flash developers that actually wanted to take advantage of the advanced features the iPhone possessed.
The logical connection, if you really need it spelled out, is that access to a "good enough" development platform that works (i.e. Flash) is often a barrier to the adoption of a great development platform. By banning Flash from the iPhone, it forced a large (and fairly successful) development community to come into existence out of seemingly nowhere.
Put another way, Apple didn't want Flash to become the de facto development environment of the iPhone. Doing so would have placed Apple at a competitive disadvantage, with Adobe in charge. The fact that Apple acted in its own best interests shouldn't really be surprising.
And to those of you who ignore this sleight of hand and argue that Apple must do whatever it can to restore a sense of childlike wonder and superior design to humanity: shut up, you stupid fanboy zombies. Brains like yours are the reason we have the politicians we have.
Through history, there are very few instances where this approach has won an actual debate.
You're giving Adobe far too much credit. I don't think their current management team is bright enough to have thought of that.
Siri has options for three flavors of English, French, and German.
Yup. My previous generation Android phone had voice search and command input (as does my current one). Damned annoying. Its the first thing I turn off.
There are two possible explanations for this.
1) Voice recognition on phones is useless, has always been useless, and will always be useless, forever, whether it be from Apple, Android, or Taco Bell.
2) The two things you're equating are not actually the same thing.
I think it's a mistake to say that "It didn't work on Android, so Siri must be shit". But hey, that's just my opinion.
Walking around, or sitting on the train, talking to my mobile, viewing the response, looking like an ass - none of this adds up to the experience I was hoping to have - which is that all data flows from my brain onto the device which presents the results to my visual cortex without having to interact with anything at all.
Let me know when they are done making that one work.
When they do, someone will undoubtedly come along and make specious claims that Android has had that for years. This will of course require that one overlook the fact that the path to the visual cortex is actually via "displaying words and images on a screen in front of the person's eyes", but this really just amounts to quibbling over semantics.
So basically, you're saying that because it didn't work for you, it can never work for anyone else, ever, anywhere, forever. Yes?