I assume the RIAA didn't know this person was actually sick before they went after them.
I thought that was part of why people disagree with what the RIAA is doing here. How can you blindly file lawsuits against people you know nothing about?
It's a good example of their tactics affecting innocent people who already have enough to deal with. That's the point I think this article is supposed to make. The law was never intended to be used this way. Filing a lawsuit is something that should be done after a lot of thought, taking into account the real world situation. This is important because the law is very strict and abstract. It's supposed to be used when people can't resolve things by themselves, not as the first step, partly for reasons like this.
Especially if it came preloaded with stuff, avoiding one of the biggest complaints about the Zune. I'm just surprised it took them so bloody long to figure out what to do. Because what Apple did was actually pretty simple.
Who said it was more important? Are only the mostest important evah things allowed to be talked about? Now, you could agrue if this was interesting enough to be posted on the front page, but that is quite different to assuming that some people think this issue is more important than the one you listed because it was posted in place of the others.
That was really evident when Apple switched over from PPC chips to Intel chips. For years the zealot types had held that PPC was the One True Way(tm) and Macs were much faster because of it. Then all of a sudden the dogma had to be changed, and it did, they were smoothly proclaiming how amazing the Core 2 series was, and how smart Apple was for using it.
I have to take issue here, because the industry is complex and things change. At the time, the PPC was pretty good, and it definitely had very real, perceivable advantages to users -- it wasn't all just marketing BS. One example I can think of was playing large, high-quality video. But then it seemed that IBM was no longer interested in PPC for consumer computers, so moving to Intel made sense.
The other part of this is that you can't go to a site like Slashdot, lump all Apple users together, and then point out how they are hypocrites, since they aren't a single hive mind, but a group of individuals. Once you subscribe to the idea of Mac Zealots, pretty soon you will see many zealots because of your selective bias and assumptions. Not that there aren't any genuine Mac zealots, of course.
Apple's successes with the iPod are chiefly marketing related, not technological.
BS. Apple were the first to make such a device user friendly. And yes, they know how to market them, too. The truth is, most of those issues you listed don't concern most people.
Sorry, I think I get what you mean now. There are differences when talking to someone in person vs. on a phone, like the lack of body language, which would affect the way the person processes things and therefore could distract them more, depending on the person. Not sure how much that would contribute to the problem though. It depends if they showed the same behavior if you set them up with a video feed of the driving while talking on the phone. It's possible that it could be the main factor, but might not be that relevant. I know in the Aussie supercar races, they occasionally talked to the drivers on some of the endurance races (not sure if they still do) and have caused them to almost crash, but that's quite different in many ways as the commentators could be looking at any camera view, and the whole thing is a bit different to talking to your friend on the way to work. I think the 2nd set of eyes theory does make sense when they're an actual passenger in the car.
I don't know if I believe this. We've had blind passengers riding around with people for a very long time and I don't recall anybody complaining that talking to blind people while driving a car increases one's risk of an accident.
Yeah, because blind passengers are such a high percentage of passengers. And since people may not have taken that into consideration before, since there were no studies about it, how do you know it was never an issue?
You're forgetting that with CB radios, conversations are to the point and everyone knows that you're driving. Plus you could also argue that there is a greater need for them to use it than for you average person talking about whatever on their cellphone. Can you really not see the difference here, or are you just ranting because you're upset that you may no longer be able to use your cellphone in good faith?
Yeah, because statistics never have anomalies. Why would such a thing lead to a decrease when all evidence says it would only cause more accidents? I guess the shift itself could have caused the decrease, but if that was true, you'd need to increase it periodically.
It could even be more easily avoid by not answering the phone in the first place, or saying "I'm driving, I'll call you back, bye". Just how many calls are really that important that you absolutely must take them right now?
Sorry, but this just sounds like a bad analogy. I think it has more to do with the brain simply being made more inefficient because it's doing something else (something that has been highly studied) than because something else is taking up more power.
Err... right. I think most drivers know about unexpected distractions, and that is the problem -- if you are talking on your cellphone, then you are not going to be able to re-focus your attention as fast. That is kind of the whole point here. And who on earth is telling drivers that they should expect things to be perfect all the time?
I think you'll find that some designers would try to not make their cars look like faces. I'm not sure the study was a waste of time, although I don't think it's as interesting as the study that concluded some people use the same neurological process that recognizes faces to recognizes cars, while some people don't. The people who did needed to see the whole car, similar to how people generally can't identify a face by looking at separate facial features alone.
Well, except that in that movie the eyes are on the windscreens, not the headlights, which is what most people would identify as the eyes, I'm guessing.
It's not logical reasons that keep people from shifting to Linux now, it's just the fear of the unknown.
As a Mac user and someone who occasionally enjoys installing Linux or BSD on various things, I can assure you that you are wrong. Nothing against Linux, but to say that there are no logical reasons keeping someone from using shows a lack of understanding about what some users want.
I might be able to accept that someone would have a psychological reason, rather than physiological reason, for an inability to control their weight. But that shouldn't be a free pass to discounted health care- if you can't control your weight, either accept you'll have a reduced quality of life and increased health care payments... or do something about it, including getting treatment.
So you don't think that health care should include mental health?
The Webster definition is a bit different from the medical or psychological definition. Avoiding socialising can become enough of a problem to be classified as a psychological disorder, but it's quite different from addiction (psychological or medical) where the subject or substance itself has become the main problem, rather than a symptom of something else. Yeah, the distinction is small and vague, but still important in terms of treatment.
Slashdot Mirror
It also costs a lot of money for people on both sides of the law. I don't think money is a bigger issue here.
I assume the RIAA didn't know this person was actually sick before they went after them.
I thought that was part of why people disagree with what the RIAA is doing here. How can you blindly file lawsuits against people you know nothing about?
It's a good example of their tactics affecting innocent people who already have enough to deal with. That's the point I think this article is supposed to make. The law was never intended to be used this way. Filing a lawsuit is something that should be done after a lot of thought, taking into account the real world situation. This is important because the law is very strict and abstract. It's supposed to be used when people can't resolve things by themselves, not as the first step, partly for reasons like this.
Especially if it came preloaded with stuff, avoiding one of the biggest complaints about the Zune. I'm just surprised it took them so bloody long to figure out what to do. Because what Apple did was actually pretty simple.
Who said it was more important? Are only the mostest important evah things allowed to be talked about? Now, you could agrue if this was interesting enough to be posted on the front page, but that is quite different to assuming that some people think this issue is more important than the one you listed because it was posted in place of the others.
That was really evident when Apple switched over from PPC chips to Intel chips. For years the zealot types had held that PPC was the One True Way(tm) and Macs were much faster because of it. Then all of a sudden the dogma had to be changed, and it did, they were smoothly proclaiming how amazing the Core 2 series was, and how smart Apple was for using it.
I have to take issue here, because the industry is complex and things change. At the time, the PPC was pretty good, and it definitely had very real, perceivable advantages to users -- it wasn't all just marketing BS. One example I can think of was playing large, high-quality video. But then it seemed that IBM was no longer interested in PPC for consumer computers, so moving to Intel made sense.
The other part of this is that you can't go to a site like Slashdot, lump all Apple users together, and then point out how they are hypocrites, since they aren't a single hive mind, but a group of individuals. Once you subscribe to the idea of Mac Zealots, pretty soon you will see many zealots because of your selective bias and assumptions. Not that there aren't any genuine Mac zealots, of course.
Apple's successes with the iPod are chiefly marketing related, not technological.
BS. Apple were the first to make such a device user friendly. And yes, they know how to market them, too. The truth is, most of those issues you listed don't concern most people.
If you can't buy an iPhone without a contract, that's an issue with your carrier, not Apple.
"Side effect" sounds better. "Malfunction" implies that something isn't working as it should.
You're really comparing the MacBook air to an EEE PC? The MacBook air has a large display and a full-size keyboard, if nothing else.
No.
Sorry, I think I get what you mean now. There are differences when talking to someone in person vs. on a phone, like the lack of body language, which would affect the way the person processes things and therefore could distract them more, depending on the person. Not sure how much that would contribute to the problem though. It depends if they showed the same behavior if you set them up with a video feed of the driving while talking on the phone. It's possible that it could be the main factor, but might not be that relevant. I know in the Aussie supercar races, they occasionally talked to the drivers on some of the endurance races (not sure if they still do) and have caused them to almost crash, but that's quite different in many ways as the commentators could be looking at any camera view, and the whole thing is a bit different to talking to your friend on the way to work. I think the 2nd set of eyes theory does make sense when they're an actual passenger in the car.
Yeah, I forgot about that. That would definitely help. Not sure why you got modded down for that.
I don't know if I believe this. We've had blind passengers riding around with people for a very long time and I don't recall anybody complaining that talking to blind people while driving a car increases one's risk of an accident.
Yeah, because blind passengers are such a high percentage of passengers. And since people may not have taken that into consideration before, since there were no studies about it, how do you know it was never an issue?
You're forgetting that with CB radios, conversations are to the point and everyone knows that you're driving. Plus you could also argue that there is a greater need for them to use it than for you average person talking about whatever on their cellphone. Can you really not see the difference here, or are you just ranting because you're upset that you may no longer be able to use your cellphone in good faith?
Yeah, because statistics never have anomalies. Why would such a thing lead to a decrease when all evidence says it would only cause more accidents? I guess the shift itself could have caused the decrease, but if that was true, you'd need to increase it periodically.
It could even be more easily avoid by not answering the phone in the first place, or saying "I'm driving, I'll call you back, bye". Just how many calls are really that important that you absolutely must take them right now?
Sorry, but this just sounds like a bad analogy. I think it has more to do with the brain simply being made more inefficient because it's doing something else (something that has been highly studied) than because something else is taking up more power.
Err... right. I think most drivers know about unexpected distractions, and that is the problem -- if you are talking on your cellphone, then you are not going to be able to re-focus your attention as fast. That is kind of the whole point here. And who on earth is telling drivers that they should expect things to be perfect all the time?
I think you'll find that some designers would try to not make their cars look like faces. I'm not sure the study was a waste of time, although I don't think it's as interesting as the study that concluded some people use the same neurological process that recognizes faces to recognizes cars, while some people don't. The people who did needed to see the whole car, similar to how people generally can't identify a face by looking at separate facial features alone.
Well, except that in that movie the eyes are on the windscreens, not the headlights, which is what most people would identify as the eyes, I'm guessing.
It's not logical reasons that keep people from shifting to Linux now, it's just the fear of the unknown.
As a Mac user and someone who occasionally enjoys installing Linux or BSD on various things, I can assure you that you are wrong. Nothing against Linux, but to say that there are no logical reasons keeping someone from using shows a lack of understanding about what some users want.
but there is nothing he can do
He can take it back and demand a refund or get XP installed. You don't think that happens? That is far more likely that switching to Linux or Mac.
So you don't think that health care should include mental health?
The Webster definition is a bit different from the medical or psychological definition. Avoiding socialising can become enough of a problem to be classified as a psychological disorder, but it's quite different from addiction (psychological or medical) where the subject or substance itself has become the main problem, rather than a symptom of something else. Yeah, the distinction is small and vague, but still important in terms of treatment.