but then again there are people who are pushing trivia on Wikipedia, which is not good.
Explain to me why it is not good to have trivia on wikipedia. If it is true, and organized appropriately, where's the downside? it's not like you'll run out of room on the "page" for "important" information if you have too much trivia.
So lots of people are commenting "wikipedia shouldn't be a dumping ground for advertising!". True, that. But consider this: would you rather have info left out of something that is, by definition, supposed to be encyclopedic? Then other people complain that you get crufty pages and no one will trust wikipedia for veracity. That's already happened! Deleting articles won't help this phenomenon; it will force people to start from scratch, putting even less effort into writing an article because they know it will probably be deleted again. As for veracity, everyone knows that wikipedia is a starting point and that you should do your own research to confirm facts within subjects that really interest you.
Then there are groups that say wikipedia needs to be "trimmed" and "sleek". Wikipedia isn't some piece of desktop software that runs in a vacuum! It's an encyclopedia! It's supposed to be encyclopedic! You know, comprehensive, over-arching, all-encompassing, not leaving things out due to bias. And yes, deleting things because they aren't "notable" is bias; if I went around deleting things on wikipedia that weren't noteworthy to me, there would be no articles on professional wrestling and football and half a dozen other subjects I know nothing of, or care to know of.
These destructive weenies who can't deal with the information overload should go find some other project to ruin. I've always considered wikipedia a first stop for starting research into topics that interest me; when I've found a page or two that was missing something I knew to be true, I've added it. Recently, I've noticed that edits adding factual information have been reverted, with not even an explanation. I have since stopped contributing to wikipedia, and I won't be donating any money to them until they get rid of the notability nazis.
The really significant part of the story, is that in order for a tech journalist to remain publicly relevant, they have to at least appear to know, understand and 'like' Linux.
Consider the enormous change that has been achieved in terms of acceptability and mind share. Linux is now recognized as being the future universal operating system, to not recognize and acknowledge that, leaves a tech journalist marginalized and redundant in the tech communities public eye.
So regardless of whether or not he is sincere, he is at least accepting and acknowledging the truth of Linux as THE operating system of the twenty first century;).
In some ways, this is disappointing. Don't get me wrong: I love Linux (see my sig). I use it for everything. But I don't think it's right for everyone. I don't think anyone should be forced to use it, and I don't think you should have to know, understand or like Linux to be a tech journalist. If people like Linux for anything, it should be on it's own merits, not what market share it has, or because it's required for the job.
Should you know Linux if you are writing about it or something related to it? That goes without saying. But if you are, say, developing an operating system orthogonal to Linux you shouldn't have to be an expert in Linux. Or if you are writing for Mac world, you probably don't need to know what Linux is.
I hope Linux never turns into the next Windows, and not just in the sense that the UI is similar. I don't ever want to hear the phrase "nobody was ever fired for going with Linux". As a matter of fact, I don't ever want to hear any variation of "nobody was ever fired for buying IBM"; I want to hear that phrase replaced with a sincere "we evaluated all our options and chose Linux for it's superior stability, security, technology and low TCO".
I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.
-- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a
rumor that a jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from
atheism. Article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5,
No. 2, 1997
. . . a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal god, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests . . . The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.
-- Albert Einstein, address at the Princeton Theological Seminary,
May 19, 1939, published in _Out of My Later Years_, New York:
Philosophical Library, 1950.
I do not believe in the god of theology who rewards good and punishes evil.
-- Albert Einstein, Personal memoir of William Miller, editor, Life,
May 2, 1955
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
-- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, from article
by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997
It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which [I] lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the 'merely personal,' from an existence which is dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings.
-- Albert Einstein, as quoted in Einstein, history, and Other
Passions, p. 172
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein
The idea of a personal god is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously.
-- Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946
The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery -- even
It seems to me that it would be worth the trouble to mechanize startup so that each step is isolated from all the others and knows which previous step it's dependent on and waits for only that step, while everything else cruises ahead in parallel.
There is work being done on this already. I can't remember specific links right now (googling turns up some interestinglinks), but I remember I first heard about it on Planet Debian, an RSS feed collector for Debian developer's blogs; I've found some very interesting things by browsing by there every once and a while. See also init-ng.
Because linux users, as a general rule, have a strong aversion to paying for a commercial product.
I keep hearing this, and more and more, I suspect it's not true, especially as corps pick up Linux and want enterprise products on their servers. I know that anecdotes don't count for crap, but I have paid plenty of money for software (even closed source!) that runs on Linux. Granted, most of that has been for games, but it's still a valid point. Besides, we're talking about a physical product here that is sold (the in car GPS device) with no relation to being able to interface it to a computer; then the company tells us you can connect it to your computer to do neat things with it. Great! Where's the free Linux client that should be available beside the free Mac and Windows client? Where does not wanting to pay money factor into the free-software-to-support-a-product-I-already-paid-for business model?
On a related note, I only use Linux at home; it covers everything I need (accounting, gaming, programming, photo management, etc). The only reasons I have Mac and Windows boxes is for my users (as both a sysadmin with users who won't use anything else, and a programmer who develops for such users). If your company doesn't offer a Linux version or doesn't have hardware that works with Linux, great, that's one less choice I have to consider. And for those who think I am limiting my choices, saying that I'm ignoring "higher quality" choices that otherwise work on other platforms, I have generally found that it's the exact opposite: if they don't support Linux, their product is usually inferior to those who do.
Much like "Liberal" and "Conservative" are no longer definitions of political ideology but epithets.
I've got a request: can we start using the word "partisan" as an epithet - a curse word? As in "all the liberals and conservatives who always vote the party line, no matter what their representatives are doing are filthy traitorous non-thinking partisans".
Or hell, go one step further and charge fruitarians less. After all, they claim it makes them healthier.
Each ounce of fish, -$0.10
Funny, I though the definition of vegetarian was that they ate only plant based life. Besides, some might argue that you should be charged more for eating fish, since the levels of mercury in fish have been rising.
Each mile you jog, -$0.50
Except that jogging is hard on the joints, and those are very costly to replace. Perhaps you meant exercise that was less high-impact, such as bicycling or swimming?
At first I thought "this is horrible! what about people who have diseases through no fault of their own (eg, inherited ones)?". Then I saw that two of the examples were to charge smokers and people with high BMI more. The smokers, I can kind of see, but I'd much prefer that they'd phrase it differently; perhaps an (ab)use fee, for not avoiding an activity that has been shown to be detrimental to your health. The BMI thing is probably a bad way to go about charging overweight people "use" fees, since it is really just a silly little formula with no relation to physical fitness (as others have pointed out).
Then I got to thinking a thought that has cropped up in my head a lot recently: insurance companies are the best example of how a "free" market doesn't work for all areas of life. Think about it: the original purpose of insurance was to spread the costs of risk so that society would be a place you would want to live in. These are costs you are going to pay one way or another (as countless privileged classes (such as the French nobility during the French revolution) have discovered). Insurance just makes it so that when someone has a problem, everyone can contribute a little bit to help them out, with the understanding that everyone might need that help from time to time. Insurance as it is now (in the US) is a travesty that not only sometimes runs counter to the original purpose of insurance, but drives up the costs of things insured against, all for the profit of shareholders which probably don't even contribute to the insurance pool. Insurance companies shouldn't be for profit companies, as it severely distorts the intent of insurance.
One other thing: I thought we already charged smokers a "use" fee in the form of taxes on cigarettes; where is that money going and why do we need to charge them even more?
But it is not technological innovation that is selling the iPhone, it is marketing.
Thank you, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that thinks it is all hype.
I've been saying this for a while: the iPhone is nothing new (short of a few slight UI improvements, if you want to view them that way). It's extremely overrated, and offers nothing over what other smartphones offer. It'll work as a web browser, PDA, phone (and now I hear you can load software on it), but it ain't the second coming, and frankly, most people don't see the need to spend $600 on hype when they may already have a perfectly workable smartphone. Apple fanboys: get over it. Apple products aren't perfect, they aren't "revolutionizing markets", and they aren't for everyone. If you believe any of that, you've drank the kool-aid, and I pity you for the sheep you are.
You offended the cult of Apple by insinuating that the iPhone was anything less than perfect. Thats why you got marked troll.
Slashdot, a site originally all about Linux and similarly geeky things, has been overrun with Apple fanboys, Microsoft apologists and all around assholes. There a few who are extremely insightful (most of them I have marked as friends), and you learn to try to ignore the Apple hype articles. What annoys me (besides the Apple hype) is that I have the Apple section turned off, yet I still see hype about the iPhone.
I always like to say there's no such thing as "inedible". "Indegistible", maybe, but not "inedible".
Re:All bank vaults and locks have also been cracke
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 1
There is no uncrackable security technology.
I think my dad got it right when he first tried to explain security to me: you only have to make it more expensive to bypass the security than the thing it's protecting is worth, to make it 'secure'. In this sense, all DRM is 'secure' as the thing it is protecting is worth pretty much nothing. But this of course ignores the fact that DRM costs very little to bypass, and really isn't 'secure' in any true sense. Also, DRM is unconstitutional and tyrannical, so people will bypass it just for kicks or because it pisses them off, not because they want to pirate anything.
Ah, I see the Apple fanboys are finally starting to come out in force. Wonder what took them so long, usually an anti-Apple comment would be at -1 by now. I'm still wondering if the "Redundant" mod was honest because others mentioned the monopoly effect already, or an Apple fanboy just wanted his zealous down-mod to look legit.
And yes, just for reference, I have used Mac OS, from version 7 all the way to X. I've also programmed for them, and on both counts, I would have to recommend looking elsewhere. Hence my signature.
Look, you can look at a smartphone from two perspectives: the technical and the end user. Since the technical specs on an embedded device are irrelevant as long as they are sufficient to the tasks asked of them, they are irrelevant to the technical user. The difference in technical specs is negligible anyway. The thing that matters most on embedded devices is: do I have control over it? When I buy it, can I change the software if I please? Treo 650: yes; iPhone: not currently, and given Apple's past track record, it's doubtful this will change.
But we (at least I) can ignore that, as the iPhone and the Treos aren't aimed at technical users, that's merely a nice side benefit in the Treos' favor. Typical end users don't care what OS it runs; they don't care about MHz. What is more important is what is offered to the end-user: can you make phone calls? can you look up information online? can you watch videos and listen to music? You can do all of these things with both phones, so either would work equally well for the end-user. Hmmm, what else could we compare . . . ?
Well, we could sidestep the whole application issue and discuss tech specs (as you hamhandedly attempted), but I've already pointed out why they are irrelevant to both the technical and end users. How about we go back to the original argument, which you contested and I soundly rebuked: the Treo can do more than the iPhone can.
There is a vital question, and as I have (attempted) to correct the gaps in your knowledge, I kindly ask that you do me the same favor in return: can you load software on the iPhone? can you write your own software for it? Last I heard, you can't. Even if you could, please list URL's where I can download not only binaries, but source to equivalents of the applications that I listed. For free. I use these applications (and more) on a daily basis, so asking me (and others like me) to switch merely because Apple and their fanboys think their new toy is the hot shit is not reasonable. Telling new users that their new toy has less capabilities and features than a model a few years older isn't exactly a winning market technique either. Which is why I guess Apple markets itself almost entirely on the "coolness" factor.
I'll grant you the iPhone has more memory; but I can get virtually unlimited memory on my Treo with extra SD cards. Can you add additional memory to the iPhone? So juggling cards, possibly losing them, etc, etc, is a slight disadvantage. I've not had problems with mine; I mostly keep my 1GB SD card in my Treo with my favorite music; if I want to watch HHGTG, I swap the memory card out, much like switching a DVD.
Just to pound it in one last time: the tech specs don't matter, and even if they did, they aren't "new" features, merely slightly improved ones. The adapter is a niggling problem, easily solved, and they even make headsets with 2.5mm plugs that double as some pretty nice earphones.
So while it's obvious the Treo has more total features, it's not accurate to say it has "everything" the iPhone does
I didn't say that; you are putting words in my mouth; I specifically said:
My Treo 650 can do everything the iPhone can, and some things it can't.
Are you being obtuse? Palms have had a touch screen since they came out over ten years ago.
And how much does the "sold separately" expansion card for the MP3 player hold?
I don't know what you are talking about, but TCPMP seems to play my OGGs just fine from any of my SD cards, which I've been using since I had a Palm m500. It's also handy to take the SD card from my digital camera and upload the pictures to my webserver via my Treo.
Does it also run OS X?
No; that's one of the reasons I like it:)
That screen sure is big.
Yeah, it's about 75% the size of the iPhone's screen. Not too shabby, especially considering that it came out on the market years ago.
Watch movies on it do you?
I do, with the aforementioned TCPMP, which I have source to. "HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is my current favorite. I also play NES and GameBoy games, keep track of my car's mileage, keep track of my finances, keep track of my passwords, administer my servers remotely, read books, get directions, browse the web, etc, etc. Hell, I can even write and run software, right on my Treo! I haven't been paying attention, is Apple allowing people to even *load* third party software on the iPhone yet? How about that battery, can you swap it out with a spare like I can on any of my Palm devices and cell phones? Can you expand the memory? $600 is a lot, but I can buy a Treo 650 and 15 1GB SD cards for that much money. Plus I wouldn't be locked into a single provider. Or I could even wait three months and get a fully open-sourced phone with even more features, and port all the software that I use to it.
You're "does it run OSX" bit gives you away: you're an Apple fanboy, and the only reason you replied was because you didn't have points to mod me down. Face it, the only thing new that the iPhone brings to the cell phone world is Apple's marketing power.
I have to agree with the poster. The iPhone is nothing new. My Treo 650 can do everything the iPhone can, and some things it can't. When I heard about the iPhone, my first reaction was "oh fuck, the fanboys are going to be unbearable about yet another Apple toy that's a copycat."
To be honest, Apple appears to me to be a lot like Microsoft: they are both good marketing firms. Microsoft just happens to understand the psychology of upper management, and so sells well to them. Apple happens to understand the psychology of fanboys and whips them up into a frenzy to sell everyone on an image that has very little substance behind it. Sure the iPhone "looks" cool but in the end it's just a phone that brings nothing new to the market.
As for a reason why America lags behind Japan? Consumer lock-in, my friend. Monopolies tend to do things like that.
I call bullshit. You can have your cake and eat it too . . . just don't eat too much of it.
Probably about 99% of obesity is due to a failure of self-discipline. I'm living proof. When I graduated from college, I weighed about 150-160 pounds (I wasn't paying close attention because my weight wasn't a problem then). Then I moved away from my father who I hiked with at least once a week, I stopped biking too and from work, and I ate even after I was full. What happened? I ballooned to approximately 200 pounds.
I'm slowly burning it off. How am I doing this? Is it some wonder drug, or new fad diet? No, it's self-discipline, plain and simple. I am following the hacker's diet, but that basically amounts to having self-control and limiting *how* much you eat, not what you eat. I was already eating pretty healthily before I started dieting. I just needed to eat less. I also exercise more now, but that's not important. The important part is, yes, you are going to feel hungry, yes you are going to have hunger pangs. Otherwise, you are not forcing your body to rely on and burn it's fat stores. Unless you are eating an extremely high-fiber/bulky low calorie diet, you are going to have to suffer to lose weight. Even if you exercise, you can't hold down a full time job and exercise enough to stave off the hunger pangs. I know; I've hiked 4, 8, 12 hours, and it keeps the hunger away while I'm hiking, but soon after I stop I get voracious.
And I don't care if you think you have some "condition" that makes you gain weight. You can still lose weight; it doesn't matter if you have hypothyroidism, or you're on a drug that slows your metabolism down; it's very simple: EAT LESS THAN YOU BURN AND YOU WILL LOSE WEIGHT.
Now, going back to the main topic: I have fat friends that I have lunch and breakfast with. I've still managed to lose weight. I just don't eat as much as they do. It's called will power, self-control and self-discipline. Stop making excuses for your fat ass.
But a reality kicked in. The poor only can afford the throw away from the rich. Right now the poor are sucking up the SUV's because they are all over the place at the $1500-$3900 price tag, which is all the car they can afford. The efficient cars like the older GEO metro the VW TDI and others are not selling for such low prices (I just sold a 3cyl Geo metro on Ebay for $6500.00 Bluebook is $3500) as the middle class are sucking them up off the used market.
So if Gas goes up it only punishes the poor. The rich and middle class like to bitch about it but it really does not affect them one tiny bit. The poor and working poor are those it hits incredibly hard as they cant afford a car that get's > 20mpg cant afford to have their car's in perfect running condition, and cant afford things like Low rolling resistance tires to beef up their cars economy (I have a 2001 Aztek, after a few modifications I am getting 28mpg.).
Not to mention it will make other necessities of life (such as groceries) go up in price. A *lot* of things are not grown or made locally anymore, and have to be shipped. You think the distributors (such as grocers) are going to soak up the increased costs? Or the truckers, who are probably part of the working poor? The only good thing that might come from higher gas prices in this country is that distributors will start looking into more efficient means of transportation (to get a competitive price advantage), or a revolution when the cost of bread goes up to $10 a loaf.
An atheist is making a positive statement that they do not believe in God or Gods, period. Atheism is as much a belief as theism - it's a belief that the person in question *knows* the truth about the existence of God or Gods.
Atheism covers a whole multitude of disbelief - from actively saying that someone believes there is no god, to saying they have no belief in god. Note that this isn't the same thing. It's the difference between "I believe there is no god" and "I have no belief in god". Many have tried to get around this by coining new terms; things like "anti-theist" or your cutesy "apatheist", etc. The truth is, most self-proclaimed atheists have very little faith, or proportion their beliefs to the evidence. It makes sense when you break the word down, too: "theist" = believes in god; add the greek prefix "a" to "theist" to negate it = no belief in god. Therefore, there is no "positive statement"; there is no belief to challenge.
As for agnostics, everyone is an agnostic; no one knows whether god exists or not.
Proof that Jesus lived would be trivial; I'd be surprised if he didn't, considering that there is evidence outside of the bible that he did, in fact, exist.
I'm curious, what evidence is there that Jesus existed? I've never heard of it.
How many people on either side of the main political line in the US simply argue points to favour their bias like they're barracking for sports teams?
Most of them.
The same goes for console fanboys or ice cream flavours or cats vs dogs. And in politics more than almost anywhere else, it shouldn't be how things are thought of and done.
"Should" is a nice thought, but unfortunately it isn't always implemented in reality.
Why is anyone a "card-carrying" anything?
Herd instinct.
Why don't they assess each issue and position as it arises regardless of which party is presenting it?
Because people are humans, not vulcans. When you get that whole religion problem sorted out, get back to me.
Maybe that's just too much of an ideal scenario?
Yes. BTW, cats are better than dogs;)
(atheist anarchistic who mostly agrees with you, but realizes that, unfortunately, the world just doesn't work that way).
What I'm saying is that treating "us" different just because we don't use something as much (cause damage to the roads) is disengenious since it discourages a healthier use of the thing (the roads) as well as precludes any incentive to create a thing (the roads) that can be used in a healthy way in the first place, and so the thing (roads) just gets more more and more exclusive to feeding iteself for an exclusive use that requires more money and does more damage to our wallets, our bodies, and our planet.
How about we don't take SUV taxes at all, let the roads deteriorate, tax shoes and bikes, and use the money to build walkways and bikeways instead of roads? That's essentially what you're saying is done to the bicyclists and pedestrians by not taxing them because it costs more to fix the road damage of vehicles instead of making roads more friendly to bikes and pedestrians (which costs less in the long run because they do less damage than cars once the roads are in place).
Okay, that's extreme, but my point is that we need to stop justifying abuse, encouraging abuse, and finding ways to pay for abuse.
I think I can see your argument, but my problem is that little gap where we let the roads deteriorate will be hell for biking and walking on, and people will just buy bigger, beefier cars with better shocks (actually, I have a theory that this is already happening, but that's another post . . . ). The other thing to consider is that while people can change, people rarely do change, especially when you attempt to coerce them. Me, I'd love to see gas taxes go up in the US to what they are in Europe, and have it emphasized that the taxes are being levied to clean up the mess people make with their vehicles. But people would probably vote out any politician that did that, the costs of transportation would be passed on to consumers rather than taken out of corporations big pockets (and so never felt), and a gasoline tax is highly regressive - not something I'm sure is a good idea.
If it was for road usage, why aren't cyclists also charged?
Aside from the obvious, "well, duh, it's government, it's not supposed to make sense!" rebuke, there is a good reason cyclists aren't charged for road usage: the same reason people aren't charged to use sidewalks: maintenance costs. Here's some interesting numbers for you:
Guess which one does more damage to the road? Should cyclists and sidewalk users pay taxes for their usage? Probably, but it's so infinitesimally small, and the majority of users are on the lower rungs of the income ladder, that it wouldn't make much sense, so we just charge taxes the easier and more efficient way: on the biggest (ab)users of the public goods.
Here's a hint to all of you people who drive gas guzzlers: filling up your tank costs $100 not just because your H3 gets 9MPG, but because it does more damage to the road than the hippie's Prius. Try buying a car that is lighter and you won't just get better gas mileage, but probably pay less taxes in the long run because you won't be damaging the roads as much. Better yet, get a bicycle, I hear their MPG is infinite!
Slashdot Mirror
Explain to me why it is not good to have trivia on wikipedia. If it is true, and organized appropriately, where's the downside? it's not like you'll run out of room on the "page" for "important" information if you have too much trivia.
So lots of people are commenting "wikipedia shouldn't be a dumping ground for advertising!". True, that. But consider this: would you rather have info left out of something that is, by definition, supposed to be encyclopedic? Then other people complain that you get crufty pages and no one will trust wikipedia for veracity. That's already happened! Deleting articles won't help this phenomenon; it will force people to start from scratch, putting even less effort into writing an article because they know it will probably be deleted again. As for veracity, everyone knows that wikipedia is a starting point and that you should do your own research to confirm facts within subjects that really interest you.
Then there are groups that say wikipedia needs to be "trimmed" and "sleek". Wikipedia isn't some piece of desktop software that runs in a vacuum! It's an encyclopedia! It's supposed to be encyclopedic! You know, comprehensive, over-arching, all-encompassing, not leaving things out due to bias. And yes, deleting things because they aren't "notable" is bias; if I went around deleting things on wikipedia that weren't noteworthy to me, there would be no articles on professional wrestling and football and half a dozen other subjects I know nothing of, or care to know of.
These destructive weenies who can't deal with the information overload should go find some other project to ruin. I've always considered wikipedia a first stop for starting research into topics that interest me; when I've found a page or two that was missing something I knew to be true, I've added it. Recently, I've noticed that edits adding factual information have been reverted, with not even an explanation. I have since stopped contributing to wikipedia, and I won't be donating any money to them until they get rid of the notability nazis.
In some ways, this is disappointing. Don't get me wrong: I love Linux (see my sig). I use it for everything. But I don't think it's right for everyone. I don't think anyone should be forced to use it, and I don't think you should have to know, understand or like Linux to be a tech journalist. If people like Linux for anything, it should be on it's own merits, not what market share it has, or because it's required for the job.
Should you know Linux if you are writing about it or something related to it? That goes without saying. But if you are, say, developing an operating system orthogonal to Linux you shouldn't have to be an expert in Linux. Or if you are writing for Mac world, you probably don't need to know what Linux is.
I hope Linux never turns into the next Windows, and not just in the sense that the UI is similar. I don't ever want to hear the phrase "nobody was ever fired for going with Linux". As a matter of fact, I don't ever want to hear any variation of "nobody was ever fired for buying IBM"; I want to hear that phrase replaced with a sincere "we evaluated all our options and chose Linux for it's superior stability, security, technology and low TCO".
There is work being done on this already. I can't remember specific links right now (googling turns up some interesting links), but I remember I first heard about it on Planet Debian, an RSS feed collector for Debian developer's blogs; I've found some very interesting things by browsing by there every once and a while. See also init-ng.
I keep hearing this, and more and more, I suspect it's not true, especially as corps pick up Linux and want enterprise products on their servers. I know that anecdotes don't count for crap, but I have paid plenty of money for software (even closed source!) that runs on Linux. Granted, most of that has been for games, but it's still a valid point. Besides, we're talking about a physical product here that is sold (the in car GPS device) with no relation to being able to interface it to a computer; then the company tells us you can connect it to your computer to do neat things with it. Great! Where's the free Linux client that should be available beside the free Mac and Windows client? Where does not wanting to pay money factor into the free-software-to-support-a-product-I-already-paid-for business model?
On a related note, I only use Linux at home; it covers everything I need (accounting, gaming, programming, photo management, etc). The only reasons I have Mac and Windows boxes is for my users (as both a sysadmin with users who won't use anything else, and a programmer who develops for such users). If your company doesn't offer a Linux version or doesn't have hardware that works with Linux, great, that's one less choice I have to consider. And for those who think I am limiting my choices, saying that I'm ignoring "higher quality" choices that otherwise work on other platforms, I have generally found that it's the exact opposite: if they don't support Linux, their product is usually inferior to those who do.
I've got a request: can we start using the word "partisan" as an epithet - a curse word? As in "all the liberals and conservatives who always vote the party line, no matter what their representatives are doing are filthy traitorous non-thinking partisans".
Or hell, go one step further and charge fruitarians less. After all, they claim it makes them healthier.
Funny, I though the definition of vegetarian was that they ate only plant based life. Besides, some might argue that you should be charged more for eating fish, since the levels of mercury in fish have been rising.
Except that jogging is hard on the joints, and those are very costly to replace. Perhaps you meant exercise that was less high-impact, such as bicycling or swimming?
At first I thought "this is horrible! what about people who have diseases through no fault of their own (eg, inherited ones)?". Then I saw that two of the examples were to charge smokers and people with high BMI more. The smokers, I can kind of see, but I'd much prefer that they'd phrase it differently; perhaps an (ab)use fee, for not avoiding an activity that has been shown to be detrimental to your health. The BMI thing is probably a bad way to go about charging overweight people "use" fees, since it is really just a silly little formula with no relation to physical fitness (as others have pointed out).
Then I got to thinking a thought that has cropped up in my head a lot recently: insurance companies are the best example of how a "free" market doesn't work for all areas of life. Think about it: the original purpose of insurance was to spread the costs of risk so that society would be a place you would want to live in. These are costs you are going to pay one way or another (as countless privileged classes (such as the French nobility during the French revolution) have discovered). Insurance just makes it so that when someone has a problem, everyone can contribute a little bit to help them out, with the understanding that everyone might need that help from time to time. Insurance as it is now (in the US) is a travesty that not only sometimes runs counter to the original purpose of insurance, but drives up the costs of things insured against, all for the profit of shareholders which probably don't even contribute to the insurance pool. Insurance companies shouldn't be for profit companies, as it severely distorts the intent of insurance.
One other thing: I thought we already charged smokers a "use" fee in the form of taxes on cigarettes; where is that money going and why do we need to charge them even more?
Thank you, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that thinks it is all hype.
I've been saying this for a while: the iPhone is nothing new (short of a few slight UI improvements, if you want to view them that way). It's extremely overrated, and offers nothing over what other smartphones offer. It'll work as a web browser, PDA, phone (and now I hear you can load software on it), but it ain't the second coming, and frankly, most people don't see the need to spend $600 on hype when they may already have a perfectly workable smartphone. Apple fanboys: get over it. Apple products aren't perfect, they aren't "revolutionizing markets", and they aren't for everyone. If you believe any of that, you've drank the kool-aid, and I pity you for the sheep you are.
Slashdot, a site originally all about Linux and similarly geeky things, has been overrun with Apple fanboys, Microsoft apologists and all around assholes. There a few who are extremely insightful (most of them I have marked as friends), and you learn to try to ignore the Apple hype articles. What annoys me (besides the Apple hype) is that I have the Apple section turned off, yet I still see hype about the iPhone.
I've discussed this problem before, and I've been down-modded for pointing out the obvious and saying anything but nice things about Apple. I'm no longer surprised or amused. My best advice: avoid like the plague any article with the words "Apple", "iPhone", or "Mac OS" in them. Look elsewhere for intelligent discussion.
I always like to say there's no such thing as "inedible". "Indegistible", maybe, but not "inedible".
I think my dad got it right when he first tried to explain security to me: you only have to make it more expensive to bypass the security than the thing it's protecting is worth, to make it 'secure'. In this sense, all DRM is 'secure' as the thing it is protecting is worth pretty much nothing. But this of course ignores the fact that DRM costs very little to bypass, and really isn't 'secure' in any true sense. Also, DRM is unconstitutional and tyrannical, so people will bypass it just for kicks or because it pisses them off, not because they want to pirate anything.
Ah, I see the Apple fanboys are finally starting to come out in force. Wonder what took them so long, usually an anti-Apple comment would be at -1 by now. I'm still wondering if the "Redundant" mod was honest because others mentioned the monopoly effect already, or an Apple fanboy just wanted his zealous down-mod to look legit.
And yes, just for reference, I have used Mac OS, from version 7 all the way to X. I've also programmed for them, and on both counts, I would have to recommend looking elsewhere. Hence my signature.
I'm going to have to call you on this bullshit.
Look, you can look at a smartphone from two perspectives: the technical and the end user. Since the technical specs on an embedded device are irrelevant as long as they are sufficient to the tasks asked of them, they are irrelevant to the technical user. The difference in technical specs is negligible anyway. The thing that matters most on embedded devices is: do I have control over it? When I buy it, can I change the software if I please? Treo 650: yes; iPhone: not currently, and given Apple's past track record, it's doubtful this will change.
But we (at least I) can ignore that, as the iPhone and the Treos aren't aimed at technical users, that's merely a nice side benefit in the Treos' favor. Typical end users don't care what OS it runs; they don't care about MHz. What is more important is what is offered to the end-user: can you make phone calls? can you look up information online? can you watch videos and listen to music? You can do all of these things with both phones, so either would work equally well for the end-user. Hmmm, what else could we compare . . . ?
Well, we could sidestep the whole application issue and discuss tech specs (as you hamhandedly attempted), but I've already pointed out why they are irrelevant to both the technical and end users. How about we go back to the original argument, which you contested and I soundly rebuked: the Treo can do more than the iPhone can.
There is a vital question, and as I have (attempted) to correct the gaps in your knowledge, I kindly ask that you do me the same favor in return: can you load software on the iPhone? can you write your own software for it? Last I heard, you can't. Even if you could, please list URL's where I can download not only binaries, but source to equivalents of the applications that I listed. For free. I use these applications (and more) on a daily basis, so asking me (and others like me) to switch merely because Apple and their fanboys think their new toy is the hot shit is not reasonable. Telling new users that their new toy has less capabilities and features than a model a few years older isn't exactly a winning market technique either. Which is why I guess Apple markets itself almost entirely on the "coolness" factor.
I'll grant you the iPhone has more memory; but I can get virtually unlimited memory on my Treo with extra SD cards. Can you add additional memory to the iPhone? So juggling cards, possibly losing them, etc, etc, is a slight disadvantage. I've not had problems with mine; I mostly keep my 1GB SD card in my Treo with my favorite music; if I want to watch HHGTG, I swap the memory card out, much like switching a DVD.
Just to pound it in one last time: the tech specs don't matter, and even if they did, they aren't "new" features, merely slightly improved ones. The adapter is a niggling problem, easily solved, and they even make headsets with 2.5mm plugs that double as some pretty nice earphones.
I didn't say that; you are putting words in my mouth; I specifically said:
Prove me wrong.
There is wifi available for it
Are you being obtuse? Palms have had a touch screen since they came out over ten years ago.
I don't know what you are talking about, but TCPMP seems to play my OGGs just fine from any of my SD cards, which I've been using since I had a Palm m500. It's also handy to take the SD card from my digital camera and upload the pictures to my webserver via my Treo.
No; that's one of the reasons I like it :)
Yeah, it's about 75% the size of the iPhone's screen. Not too shabby, especially considering that it came out on the market years ago.
I do, with the aforementioned TCPMP, which I have source to. "HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is my current favorite. I also play NES and GameBoy games, keep track of my car's mileage, keep track of my finances, keep track of my passwords, administer my servers remotely, read books, get directions, browse the web, etc, etc. Hell, I can even write and run software, right on my Treo! I haven't been paying attention, is Apple allowing people to even *load* third party software on the iPhone yet? How about that battery, can you swap it out with a spare like I can on any of my Palm devices and cell phones? Can you expand the memory? $600 is a lot, but I can buy a Treo 650 and 15 1GB SD cards for that much money. Plus I wouldn't be locked into a single provider. Or I could even wait three months and get a fully open-sourced phone with even more features, and port all the software that I use to it.
You're "does it run OSX" bit gives you away: you're an Apple fanboy, and the only reason you replied was because you didn't have points to mod me down. Face it, the only thing new that the iPhone brings to the cell phone world is Apple's marketing power.
I have to agree with the poster. The iPhone is nothing new. My Treo 650 can do everything the iPhone can, and some things it can't. When I heard about the iPhone, my first reaction was "oh fuck, the fanboys are going to be unbearable about yet another Apple toy that's a copycat."
To be honest, Apple appears to me to be a lot like Microsoft: they are both good marketing firms. Microsoft just happens to understand the psychology of upper management, and so sells well to them. Apple happens to understand the psychology of fanboys and whips them up into a frenzy to sell everyone on an image that has very little substance behind it. Sure the iPhone "looks" cool but in the end it's just a phone that brings nothing new to the market.
As for a reason why America lags behind Japan? Consumer lock-in, my friend. Monopolies tend to do things like that.
I call bullshit. You can have your cake and eat it too . . . just don't eat too much of it.
Probably about 99% of obesity is due to a failure of self-discipline. I'm living proof. When I graduated from college, I weighed about 150-160 pounds (I wasn't paying close attention because my weight wasn't a problem then). Then I moved away from my father who I hiked with at least once a week, I stopped biking too and from work, and I ate even after I was full. What happened? I ballooned to approximately 200 pounds.
I'm slowly burning it off. How am I doing this? Is it some wonder drug, or new fad diet? No, it's self-discipline, plain and simple. I am following the hacker's diet, but that basically amounts to having self-control and limiting *how* much you eat, not what you eat. I was already eating pretty healthily before I started dieting. I just needed to eat less. I also exercise more now, but that's not important. The important part is, yes, you are going to feel hungry, yes you are going to have hunger pangs. Otherwise, you are not forcing your body to rely on and burn it's fat stores. Unless you are eating an extremely high-fiber/bulky low calorie diet, you are going to have to suffer to lose weight. Even if you exercise, you can't hold down a full time job and exercise enough to stave off the hunger pangs. I know; I've hiked 4, 8, 12 hours, and it keeps the hunger away while I'm hiking, but soon after I stop I get voracious.
And I don't care if you think you have some "condition" that makes you gain weight. You can still lose weight; it doesn't matter if you have hypothyroidism, or you're on a drug that slows your metabolism down; it's very simple: EAT LESS THAN YOU BURN AND YOU WILL LOSE WEIGHT.
Now, going back to the main topic: I have fat friends that I have lunch and breakfast with. I've still managed to lose weight. I just don't eat as much as they do. It's called will power, self-control and self-discipline. Stop making excuses for your fat ass.
Not to mention it will make other necessities of life (such as groceries) go up in price. A *lot* of things are not grown or made locally anymore, and have to be shipped. You think the distributors (such as grocers) are going to soak up the increased costs? Or the truckers, who are probably part of the working poor? The only good thing that might come from higher gas prices in this country is that distributors will start looking into more efficient means of transportation (to get a competitive price advantage), or a revolution when the cost of bread goes up to $10 a loaf.
Atheism covers a whole multitude of disbelief - from actively saying that someone believes there is no god, to saying they have no belief in god. Note that this isn't the same thing. It's the difference between "I believe there is no god" and "I have no belief in god". Many have tried to get around this by coining new terms; things like "anti-theist" or your cutesy "apatheist", etc. The truth is, most self-proclaimed atheists have very little faith, or proportion their beliefs to the evidence. It makes sense when you break the word down, too: "theist" = believes in god; add the greek prefix "a" to "theist" to negate it = no belief in god. Therefore, there is no "positive statement"; there is no belief to challenge.
As for agnostics, everyone is an agnostic; no one knows whether god exists or not.
I'm curious, what evidence is there that Jesus existed? I've never heard of it.
Most of them.
"Should" is a nice thought, but unfortunately it isn't always implemented in reality.
Herd instinct.
Because people are humans, not vulcans. When you get that whole religion problem sorted out, get back to me.
Yes. BTW, cats are better than dogs ;)
(atheist anarchistic who mostly agrees with you, but realizes that, unfortunately, the world just doesn't work that way).
I think I can see your argument, but my problem is that little gap where we let the roads deteriorate will be hell for biking and walking on, and people will just buy bigger, beefier cars with better shocks (actually, I have a theory that this is already happening, but that's another post . . . ). The other thing to consider is that while people can change, people rarely do change, especially when you attempt to coerce them. Me, I'd love to see gas taxes go up in the US to what they are in Europe, and have it emphasized that the taxes are being levied to clean up the mess people make with their vehicles. But people would probably vote out any politician that did that, the costs of transportation would be passed on to consumers rather than taken out of corporations big pockets (and so never felt), and a gasoline tax is highly regressive - not something I'm sure is a good idea.
Aside from the obvious, "well, duh, it's government, it's not supposed to make sense!" rebuke, there is a good reason cyclists aren't charged for road usage: the same reason people aren't charged to use sidewalks: maintenance costs. Here's some interesting numbers for you:
Guess which one does more damage to the road? Should cyclists and sidewalk users pay taxes for their usage? Probably, but it's so infinitesimally small, and the majority of users are on the lower rungs of the income ladder, that it wouldn't make much sense, so we just charge taxes the easier and more efficient way: on the biggest (ab)users of the public goods.
Here's a hint to all of you people who drive gas guzzlers: filling up your tank costs $100 not just because your H3 gets 9MPG, but because it does more damage to the road than the hippie's Prius. Try buying a car that is lighter and you won't just get better gas mileage, but probably pay less taxes in the long run because you won't be damaging the roads as much. Better yet, get a bicycle, I hear their MPG is infinite!
Me too.