First, it doesn't cost $800, unless you get it contract free & 64GB, and that's a specific choice you make.
Second, it doesn't get "easily bent". You can bend any phone with enough force. If you're applying the kind of force that will bend a cell phone, then you're being careless and deserve what you get.
Any time you have business trying to control regulation it's a bad thing. Because, let's face it, business doesn't give a shit about your rights, civil or otherwise. Or your health, or your children's health, or your well being in any way. All business cares about is profit. And if you get in the way of profit, business will stomp you like a cockroach.
Also, in the west, facsimiles, or faxes, have legal weight that e-mail doesn't. Faxes also don't pass through X number of e-mail servers leaving copies of themselves in the server backups. At least I don't think they do, who knows with all this newfangled VOIP and "digital" stuffs.
At least in astronomy beyond naked-eye observation.
The universe is so vast that it boggles my mind. Just the distance between star systems in our galaxy is huge, then when you start thinking about the distance between galaxies, and then that there are clusters of galaxies... and the distance between clusters of galaxies. It's too much.
Not to mention that it pretty much puts the kibosh on things like intergalactic travel, probably even interstellar travel too.
And I think this is what Cook was saying. People went to buy a smartphone thinking they'd have the same apps/functions/etc as the iPhone if they bought any smartphone, then found that their Android phone didn't do/use the specific thing that all their friends on iPhones could do/use.
To say that Tim Cook was saying people went to intentionally buy an iPhone, but accidentally bought an Android phone is disingenuous. You know what he meant. And if you don't, you have a serious English comprehension issue.
Now, whether cellular providers' sales people fobbed Android phones off on customers who were actually looking for an iPhone is another story.
You can imagine the scenario:
"I'd like an iPhone." "That's $399, then." "What?! That's a lot!" "Well, we have these (Android) phones, and they're only $39.95." "Is that an iPhone?" "No, but it does all the same things." "Oh. And only $39.95? Okay. I'll take it."
A few months later they've discovered that iPhone only app that all their friends rave about doesn't run on Android. Oops.
The fundamental point is you're focused on semantics rather than the issue. Which sorta makes you an apologist
So, rather than worrying about what percentage of men are rapists, you might think about what behavior you engage in which enables that percentage of men that does actively commit acts of rape to feel that it's okay to do so.
Your nitpicking about semantics reeks of the mindset that asks rape victims what they were wearing that provoked a man to rape them. You seem more interested in arguing about whether all men are rapists, rather than confronting the cultural issues which enable sexual assault and rape, and allow perpetrators to get away with it.
Did you not bother to read the article? Also, if you don't know what the statistics are on rape, hey, you could... look them up. And if you don't want to discuss these issues why bother to post anything?
Again, did you read the article? 'Cause one of the points of the article is that women know not all men are rapists, so you being defensive about it doesn't help anyone, least of all you. Maybe if you shut yer yap long enough to listen to the issues you'd be "equipped" to have a discussion.
"Why is it not helpful to say 'not all men are like that'? For lots of reasons. For one, women know this. They already know not every man is a rapist, or a murderer, or violent. They don't need you to tell them.
Second, it's defensive. When people are defensive, they aren't listening to the other person; they're busy thinking of ways to defend themselves. I watched this happen on Twitter, over and again.
Third, the people saying it aren't furthering the conversation, theyâ(TM)re sidetracking it. The discussion isn't about the men who aren't a problem. (Though, I'll note, it can be. I'll get back to that.) Instead of being defensive and distracting from the topic at hand, try staying quiet for a while and actually listening to what the thousands upon thousands of women discussing this are saying. "
Eh... I just saw some Nissan Leafs on sale for $16,000. That's less than I paid for my Cube. And I didn't look at the Leafs 'cause I thought they'd be too expensive.
The downside of heirloom mechanical watches is you usually can't afford them until you're middle-aged, so you don't get to benefit from their lifetime build quality for very long. And likely your kid will just sell your prized Aqua Terra to some middle-aged bargain hunting watch collector.
And this is the problem, isn't it? Corporations shield corporate officers from criminal prosecution. The is the reform that needs to happen in the U.S., and the world.
Criminal acts perpetrated by corporate agents need to be prosecuted. The agents, and their managers, up to the top level held responsible and subject to the criminal penalties.
Or, at the very least, if we're going to continue to wrong-headed assertion that "corporations are people", then corporations need to be held accountable. If the "corporation" commits a crime that a human would be sentenced to a prison term for, that corporation should be stopped from doing business for the time of the sentence. No production. No trade. No accounts receivable/payable activity allowed. Dead stop.
Corporate acts that result in human deaths, means the corporation gets the equivalent sentencing, whatever the normal human sentence is.
One of the huge problems in the geek community is the propensity to assume other people are stupid. Despite it's being true in many cases.
This is, typically, a coping method for self-esteem. That is, if you assume everyone around you is an idiot, then you feel better about yourself. Which is fine, as far as it goes.
It becomes a problem when it causes you to become blind to your own ignorance.
Technological and scientific expertise does not make one a whole person. How many of us bemoan our lack of dates? How many of us have issues with social interaction?
Elite coders often are completely ignorant of law (and vice-versa). A psychologists may not know his browser from his OS, but he, or she, may know how to help you cope with the loss of a loved-one. Etc.
The point is, think carefully before pointing your finger at someone and crying, "Stupid!"
"Assault rifle"? Or butch looking semi-automatic rifle? 'Cause I think those are legal. An assault rifle with selective fire options semi/busrt, or semi/full auto, are illegal. But I'm betting this is the usual hyperbolic "assault" rifle, an AR or AK variant in semi-auto. Which I get really frickin' sick of hearing. And I'm a commie-pinko liberal.
You could set up another server with 20TB (or more, for versions) and ssh rsync with a shell script & cron (or whatever) job. (Linux box, obviously). I did this for years, using keychain for authentication between servers.
Now we've switched to Windows Server, and I've got to find a way to replicate it using Win. Slow going.
Of course the thing about justice is, does the punishment fit the crime?
I mean, I suppose you could go ahead and get all medieval about this, but what exactly happens when someone points a laser pointer at an aircraft? We're talking laser pointers, right? Not industrial lasers that can cut through stuff, right? Not sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads? Laser pointers, they don't seem like that big of a threat. They're not very precise either, so...
Are we talking about knocking out navigation, disabling hydraulics, burning a hole through the windows, disrupting communication? Or are we talking about an annoying glare, like at a rave, where the pilot could just look down at her instruments until the plane was out of range?
Slashdot Mirror
Bah! Nonsense. Ridiculous nonsense.
First, it doesn't cost $800, unless you get it contract free & 64GB, and that's a specific choice you make.
Second, it doesn't get "easily bent". You can bend any phone with enough force. If you're applying the kind of force that will bend a cell phone, then you're being careless and deserve what you get.
You're disaster hyping like Fox News.
Any time you have business trying to control regulation it's a bad thing. Because, let's face it, business doesn't give a shit about your rights, civil or otherwise. Or your health, or your children's health, or your well being in any way. All business cares about is profit. And if you get in the way of profit, business will stomp you like a cockroach.
Fuck the Kochs and their ilk.
Also, in the west, facsimiles, or faxes, have legal weight that e-mail doesn't. Faxes also don't pass through X number of e-mail servers leaving copies of themselves in the server backups. At least I don't think they do, who knows with all this newfangled VOIP and "digital" stuffs.
It'd be nice if they had one OS for client machines, one for servers, and one for mobile. Not
, etc.
Sometimes we have to go with the headline we have, not the headline we want.
At least in astronomy beyond naked-eye observation.
The universe is so vast that it boggles my mind. Just the distance between star systems in our galaxy is huge, then when you start thinking about the distance between galaxies, and then that there are clusters of galaxies... and the distance between clusters of galaxies. It's too much.
Not to mention that it pretty much puts the kibosh on things like intergalactic travel, probably even interstellar travel too.
And I think this is what Cook was saying. People went to buy a smartphone thinking they'd have the same apps/functions/etc as the iPhone if they bought any smartphone, then found that their Android phone didn't do/use the specific thing that all their friends on iPhones could do/use.
To say that Tim Cook was saying people went to intentionally buy an iPhone, but accidentally bought an Android phone is disingenuous. You know what he meant. And if you don't, you have a serious English comprehension issue.
Now, whether cellular providers' sales people fobbed Android phones off on customers who were actually looking for an iPhone is another story.
You can imagine the scenario:
"I'd like an iPhone."
"That's $399, then."
"What?! That's a lot!"
"Well, we have these (Android) phones, and they're only $39.95."
"Is that an iPhone?"
"No, but it does all the same things."
"Oh. And only $39.95? Okay. I'll take it."
A few months later they've discovered that iPhone only app that all their friends rave about doesn't run on Android. Oops.
The fundamental point is you're focused on semantics rather than the issue. Which sorta makes you an apologist
So, rather than worrying about what percentage of men are rapists, you might think about what behavior you engage in which enables that percentage of men that does actively commit acts of rape to feel that it's okay to do so.
Your nitpicking about semantics reeks of the mindset that asks rape victims what they were wearing that provoked a man to rape them. You seem more interested in arguing about whether all men are rapists, rather than confronting the cultural issues which enable sexual assault and rape, and allow perpetrators to get away with it.
Did you not bother to read the article? Also, if you don't know what the statistics are on rape, hey, you could... look them up. And if you don't want to discuss these issues why bother to post anything?
Again, did you read the article? 'Cause one of the points of the article is that women know not all men are rapists, so you being defensive about it doesn't help anyone, least of all you. Maybe if you shut yer yap long enough to listen to the issues you'd be "equipped" to have a discussion.
Eh... I just saw some Nissan Leafs on sale for $16,000. That's less than I paid for my Cube. And I didn't look at the Leafs 'cause I thought they'd be too expensive.
"The rise may continue to be relatively slow for at least the next century or so..."
Oh. Okay. I'll be dead by then, and I didn't have any kids.
You young'uns're screwed! Heeheehee!
The downside of heirloom mechanical watches is you usually can't afford them until you're middle-aged, so you don't get to benefit from their lifetime build quality for very long. And likely your kid will just sell your prized Aqua Terra to some middle-aged bargain hunting watch collector.
I was recently looking to get a new router to replace my old D-Link DWL-2100AP & DI-604 combo and I saw that WRT1900AC and wished it was available.
I ended up getting a refurbed D-Link DIR-651 for $12.
The WRT1900AC is on $250 on the Linksys store site. And PCWorld gives it a pretty decent review, with caveats, and out of the box firmware.
Well, they gotta pay for that deal with Comcast to stop throttling their streaming service somehow.
DingDingDingDingDingDing!
Got it right on the money!
Yup. Many of the early Unix folks were liberal arts majors who fell into computer administration, then learned to code.
A well-rounded education leads to looking at problems from different perspectives. Who wants to be blinkered by specialization?
Those who choose specialization, typically, are in it for the money.
Tax day...? Tax day? Tax day! Oh shhhhiiiiiiii....!!!
And this is the problem, isn't it? Corporations shield corporate officers from criminal prosecution. The is the reform that needs to happen in the U.S., and the world.
Criminal acts perpetrated by corporate agents need to be prosecuted. The agents, and their managers, up to the top level held responsible and subject to the criminal penalties.
Or, at the very least, if we're going to continue to wrong-headed assertion that "corporations are people", then corporations need to be held accountable. If the "corporation" commits a crime that a human would be sentenced to a prison term for, that corporation should be stopped from doing business for the time of the sentence. No production. No trade. No accounts receivable/payable activity allowed. Dead stop.
Corporate acts that result in human deaths, means the corporation gets the equivalent sentencing, whatever the normal human sentence is.
One of the huge problems in the geek community is the propensity to assume other people are stupid. Despite it's being true in many cases.
This is, typically, a coping method for self-esteem. That is, if you assume everyone around you is an idiot, then you feel better about yourself. Which is fine, as far as it goes.
It becomes a problem when it causes you to become blind to your own ignorance.
Technological and scientific expertise does not make one a whole person. How many of us bemoan our lack of dates? How many of us have issues with social interaction?
Elite coders often are completely ignorant of law (and vice-versa). A psychologists may not know his browser from his OS, but he, or she, may know how to help you cope with the loss of a loved-one. Etc.
The point is, think carefully before pointing your finger at someone and crying, "Stupid!"
"Assault rifle"? Or butch looking semi-automatic rifle? 'Cause I think those are legal. An assault rifle with selective fire options semi/busrt, or semi/full auto, are illegal. But I'm betting this is the usual hyperbolic "assault" rifle, an AR or AK variant in semi-auto. Which I get really frickin' sick of hearing. And I'm a commie-pinko liberal.
You could set up another server with 20TB (or more, for versions) and ssh rsync with a shell script & cron (or whatever) job. (Linux box, obviously). I did this for years, using keychain for authentication between servers.
Now we've switched to Windows Server, and I've got to find a way to replicate it using Win. Slow going.
Do they... at least give 'em a cup of juice after? And a cookie?
Of course the thing about justice is, does the punishment fit the crime?
I mean, I suppose you could go ahead and get all medieval about this, but what exactly happens when someone points a laser pointer at an aircraft? We're talking laser pointers, right? Not industrial lasers that can cut through stuff, right? Not sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads? Laser pointers, they don't seem like that big of a threat. They're not very precise either, so...
Are we talking about knocking out navigation, disabling hydraulics, burning a hole through the windows, disrupting communication? Or are we talking about an annoying glare, like at a rave, where the pilot could just look down at her instruments until the plane was out of range?
I bet a hefty fine would work pretty well.
You forgot "honest". A lot of pleas for an "honest" man. "Honest" about what?!
Yeah... I should have said vi.