Sure, OS X was designed with only one or two configurations for a Mac but with third party drivers its possible to extend it to almost any modern configuration in existence. There is nothing special about a Mac.
No one is claiming anything special about Macs. The whole point of the difference is what you say here. This is hardly a trivial difference - on the one hand, you have an OS that is only written, supported and tested for one or two configurations, and you have to rely on dodgy third party drivers, on the other, you have an OS written to support a wide range of hardware. Thus the analogy fails.
The hyphen is incorrect, but Iphone is the perfectly correct way to write a proper noun. Unless you're marketing for Apple, there's no need to write "iPhone" anymore than you'd write "Toys R Us" with a reversed R, or sing "ding dong ding dong" everytime you said the word "Intel"...
If it's newsworthy on those grounds, where was the Doom runs on Android story (or Quake for Window Mobile, come to that)? Perhaps we did have those stories, in which case fair enough... but lately it seems like any trivia such as "You can view this website on an Iphone" makes the news here on Slashdot. The fact that there are a few million Iphone users out there hardly makes it newsworthy - there are a billion or more phone users in general, but we don't get a story every single time someone realises you can view a web page on any other phone.
So in order to see what new technologies will change society, we wait a generation to see which ones change society, and which ones don't, and then make our conclusions?
What insight into the future that shows.
Perhaps we should also predict the weather by waiting a day, and then having weathermen tell us whether it rained or not today?
Sorry, have you ever used a search engine and tried to filter through the utter fucking tripe from morons who have no clue about anything but will happily talk about it as if an expert?
Yeah, I keep getting this rubbish from some fucking "Anonymous Coward" moron, it's so annoying.
That's interesting, but I don't think it's relevant - in computing, "basic" is relative.
I mean, web browsing on some sites today takes more processing power than many desktop computers had ten years ago. So it certainly wasn't basic then, but it is now. Not basic would be things like running the latest games, or recent CAD software - things that would be impossible on any machine a few years ago, if that software had existed.
So all they're saying is Windows is a great choice for people who want the cheapest notebook to do things that are relatively basic today.
I mean, according to you, since today's netbook is a supercomputer compared to 1980s' technology, calling them "basic" is "bullshit". I guess instead we should refer to netbooks as "advanced supercomputers", then we need even newer terms for laptops, such as "super-duper advanced supercomputers", and who knows about desktops.
Similarly, anyone who claims that a 486 is slow is just talking "bullshit", because 486s run rings around computers such as a 386 only released a few years earlier.
Copy? How so? If you mean that companies are now "rushing" to bring out their old 3G Internet phones, minus features like Java, copy/paste, MMS, video, etc, then yes that would be unfortunate. It is unfortunate that the hype over the Iphone has reduced expectations in the mobile phone market, such that once basic common features like Internet access are now seen as a premium feature, and basic UI features such as copy/paste considered optional. I do worry that it means that companies will see the Iphone and feel they can now just compete on style rather than adding new technology.
you can't deny that Apple's "lock-in" drives innovation from competitors.
I can. Given that vast amounts of continual innovation has been going on in the mobile phone market years before Apple decided to join the game late, a claim that Apple cause the innovation from the bigger players requires evidence.
Exactly - one of the things I've disliked about phones is that they are mostly closed custom platforms. Meanwhile, one of the things that I love about netbooks is that they're ordinary computers - run the same software, open, not restricted by the manufacturer. Right now, I'm far more likely to get a netbook than a high end phone to act as a mobile computer, but it'll be good if Google can change this.
Scoff all you want, but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of all religious persons do not strictly follow the tenets of their faith.
There are many who pick and choose, but there are also fundamentalists. And for all of them, they still hold unwavering "faith" to what they believe to be of utmost important.
There is no punishment for this, because the religious leaders (if indeed there are any) know that not all of their followers will adhere to every rule.
Many countries enforce religious law, with severe punishments.
Fundamentalists, in any group, can be cult-like. But to say that Christianity or Islam or Hinduism is just a large cult is simply absurd.
The point is that there's no simple black and white division. Sure, I wouldn't say that they are all a large cult, but equally, it is simply absurd to say that one thing is a cult, but all religions are not cults. There are a lot of gray areas, with some things that are different, and other behaviours that are shared, with a lot of it depending on what groups you look at, or where in the world you are.
It's the sort of arrogant atheism
I don't think that one can be arrogant about atheism, anymore than I might be arrogant about disbelief in unicorns.
Trust the cult above all else (note that this is different from say Christianity, which would make the bible the authority rather than the church)
Firstly, some religions do say that one particular person's word should be treated as authority (e.g., the Pope). Secondly, I'm not sure there is much difference, when religious leaders are still telling you how that text should be interpretted. I mean, if the CoS said that its teachings were just coming from a book, would it stop being a cult?
I also don't see any difference for "emotional manipulation".
I don't think it's a misnomer - if someone says he runs a shop/bar/club that's open to any members of the public, we wouldn't criticise him because he had to ban the guy who smashed up the place last week. Picking about this detail would be rather pedantic.
Other smaller religions and factions are similarly destructive, like the Mormon faction that still practices polygamy
What?
There exist non-religious people who are poly. And plenty of people claim that monogamous marriage is a "religious" thing, and use that as an argument to control who should be able to get married. I find it curious that when it comes to poly, connections to religion is seen as a bad thing, but with monogamy, connection to religion is seen as a good thing. Which is it?
So go discuss it on the Wikipedia talk pages, not here. If you have reliable notable 3rd party sources to back up your claims, and a reliable source that LDS have also been widely referred to as a cult, then that should be fine.
Yes, I sometimes see inconsistency on different pages too. When you have large numbers of articles written by large numbers of people, on topics that are traditionally viewed differently, we're going to see this effect (just as we see it in all media and books).
I am afraid to make them though cause I might get banned from the site.
No, you won't. Discussion on talk pages won't ever lead to bans anyway, and bans are for people who vandalise pages, which adding sourced information certainly does not fall under.
I'm not sure I understand - if "Wikipedians" commit vandalism, they risk getting banned too. There isn't some magic "Wikipedia versus CoS" divide here, anyone who edits is a "Wikipedian", who can be banned.
We do have a constitution - the European Convention of Human Rights (ironically, given the topic, it's the EU that gave us this).
I know all about what the Supreme Court, I just fail to see how that is related to my post or the issue. I am aware of the US system, but it seems you were unaware of the European system. Sure, the SC is a good system - I don't see anyone claiming that the UK does it better. Please take your straw man argument elsewhere.
That last one is the fifth amendment, and it would apply to the encryption case here directly. In the US, if law enforcement demands your encryption keys, you have only to plead the 5th and they can't touch you. You have the absolute right not to incriminate yourself, and it will hold up in any court in the land.
Ah, now this one is relevant, sure. As I say, no one is claiming that the UK is better. In some cases, the UK is being more authoritarian - however, there are other areas where the US is doing badly. There's no magic solution that the US has found, and there are only specific things that help in specific cases (such as the fifth amendment).
I suspect that the OP just wanted to start up a UK vs US argument, as I suspect you do too, but no one here is actually making that argument.
What theory? Who claimed that? And how does the Bill or Rights stop anything (since the US has problems with new laws too, as often discussed on Slashdot)? I'm not sure how that relates to my post...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm outraged that Minesweeper made the list, and not Solitaire!
Sure, OS X was designed with only one or two configurations for a Mac but with third party drivers its possible to extend it to almost any modern configuration in existence. There is nothing special about a Mac.
No one is claiming anything special about Macs. The whole point of the difference is what you say here. This is hardly a trivial difference - on the one hand, you have an OS that is only written, supported and tested for one or two configurations, and you have to rely on dodgy third party drivers, on the other, you have an OS written to support a wide range of hardware. Thus the analogy fails.
In which case it'll be fun on a GBA too.
It couldn't possibly be that the two of you have different opinions about Doom on a mobile device?
We already had Doom everywhere. We already have Quake everywhere, in fact.
The hyphen is incorrect, but Iphone is the perfectly correct way to write a proper noun. Unless you're marketing for Apple, there's no need to write "iPhone" anymore than you'd write "Toys R Us" with a reversed R, or sing "ding dong ding dong" everytime you said the word "Intel"...
If it's newsworthy on those grounds, where was the Doom runs on Android story (or Quake for Window Mobile, come to that)? Perhaps we did have those stories, in which case fair enough... but lately it seems like any trivia such as "You can view this website on an Iphone" makes the news here on Slashdot. The fact that there are a few million Iphone users out there hardly makes it newsworthy - there are a billion or more phone users in general, but we don't get a story every single time someone realises you can view a web page on any other phone.
So in order to see what new technologies will change society, we wait a generation to see which ones change society, and which ones don't, and then make our conclusions?
What insight into the future that shows.
Perhaps we should also predict the weather by waiting a day, and then having weathermen tell us whether it rained or not today?
That was exactly his point when he said "So much so that we look in horror at places on earth where it hasn't taken hold yet."
Sorry, have you ever used a search engine and tried to filter through the utter fucking tripe from morons who have no clue about anything but will happily talk about it as if an expert?
Yeah, I keep getting this rubbish from some fucking "Anonymous Coward" moron, it's so annoying.
That's interesting, but I don't think it's relevant - in computing, "basic" is relative.
I mean, web browsing on some sites today takes more processing power than many desktop computers had ten years ago. So it certainly wasn't basic then, but it is now. Not basic would be things like running the latest games, or recent CAD software - things that would be impossible on any machine a few years ago, if that software had existed.
So all they're saying is Windows is a great choice for people who want the cheapest notebook to do things that are relatively basic today.
I mean, according to you, since today's netbook is a supercomputer compared to 1980s' technology, calling them "basic" is "bullshit". I guess instead we should refer to netbooks as "advanced supercomputers", then we need even newer terms for laptops, such as "super-duper advanced supercomputers", and who knows about desktops.
Similarly, anyone who claims that a 486 is slow is just talking "bullshit", because 486s run rings around computers such as a 386 only released a few years earlier.
It's not that bad - at least we don't get "You can now read a webpage On Your rAzR" stories every other day, unlike a certain other phone.
Copy? How so? If you mean that companies are now "rushing" to bring out their old 3G Internet phones, minus features like Java, copy/paste, MMS, video, etc, then yes that would be unfortunate. It is unfortunate that the hype over the Iphone has reduced expectations in the mobile phone market, such that once basic common features like Internet access are now seen as a premium feature, and basic UI features such as copy/paste considered optional. I do worry that it means that companies will see the Iphone and feel they can now just compete on style rather than adding new technology.
you can't deny that Apple's "lock-in" drives innovation from competitors.
I can. Given that vast amounts of continual innovation has been going on in the mobile phone market years before Apple decided to join the game late, a claim that Apple cause the innovation from the bigger players requires evidence.
Exactly - one of the things I've disliked about phones is that they are mostly closed custom platforms. Meanwhile, one of the things that I love about netbooks is that they're ordinary computers - run the same software, open, not restricted by the manufacturer. Right now, I'm far more likely to get a netbook than a high end phone to act as a mobile computer, but it'll be good if Google can change this.
Scoff all you want, but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of all religious persons do not strictly follow the tenets of their faith.
There are many who pick and choose, but there are also fundamentalists. And for all of them, they still hold unwavering "faith" to what they believe to be of utmost important.
There is no punishment for this, because the religious leaders (if indeed there are any) know that not all of their followers will adhere to every rule.
Many countries enforce religious law, with severe punishments.
Fundamentalists, in any group, can be cult-like. But to say that Christianity or Islam or Hinduism is just a large cult is simply absurd.
The point is that there's no simple black and white division. Sure, I wouldn't say that they are all a large cult, but equally, it is simply absurd to say that one thing is a cult, but all religions are not cults. There are a lot of gray areas, with some things that are different, and other behaviours that are shared, with a lot of it depending on what groups you look at, or where in the world you are.
It's the sort of arrogant atheism
I don't think that one can be arrogant about atheism, anymore than I might be arrogant about disbelief in unicorns.
I agree with 1 and 3, but this one:
Trust the cult above all else (note that this is different from say Christianity, which would make the bible the authority rather than the church)
Firstly, some religions do say that one particular person's word should be treated as authority (e.g., the Pope). Secondly, I'm not sure there is much difference, when religious leaders are still telling you how that text should be interpretted. I mean, if the CoS said that its teachings were just coming from a book, would it stop being a cult?
I also don't see any difference for "emotional manipulation".
I don't think it's a misnomer - if someone says he runs a shop/bar/club that's open to any members of the public, we wouldn't criticise him because he had to ban the guy who smashed up the place last week. Picking about this detail would be rather pedantic.
Other smaller religions and factions are similarly destructive, like the Mormon faction that still practices polygamy
What?
There exist non-religious people who are poly. And plenty of people claim that monogamous marriage is a "religious" thing, and use that as an argument to control who should be able to get married. I find it curious that when it comes to poly, connections to religion is seen as a bad thing, but with monogamy, connection to religion is seen as a good thing. Which is it?
So go discuss it on the Wikipedia talk pages, not here. If you have reliable notable 3rd party sources to back up your claims, and a reliable source that LDS have also been widely referred to as a cult, then that should be fine.
Yes, I sometimes see inconsistency on different pages too. When you have large numbers of articles written by large numbers of people, on topics that are traditionally viewed differently, we're going to see this effect (just as we see it in all media and books).
I am afraid to make them though cause I might get banned from the site.
No, you won't. Discussion on talk pages won't ever lead to bans anyway, and bans are for people who vandalise pages, which adding sourced information certainly does not fall under.
I'm not sure I understand - if "Wikipedians" commit vandalism, they risk getting banned too. There isn't some magic "Wikipedia versus CoS" divide here, anyone who edits is a "Wikipedian", who can be banned.
Yeah, I'm sure taking people's fingerprints is all we need to prevent people from getting into the cockpit and fly the plane.
I can just hear him on the plane now: "I'm hijacking this plane! Don't anybody move, and everybody do as I say, or else! I've got no fingerprints!!!"
And if it happened, you're right, the first thing people would say is "My god, this person had no fingerprints. However did we let this happen?"
And this isn't a joke - you're absolutely right: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8064332.stm
"One patient was held by US immigration officials for four hours before they allowed him to enter the country."
As far as the US Government is concerned, if you don't have fingerprints, that means there's something wrong with you, not their fucked up system.
I'm sure they'll throw you out with the same hospitality that these thugs showed a Guardian journalist. But hey, they say they're not as bad as Iran!
We do have a constitution - the European Convention of Human Rights (ironically, given the topic, it's the EU that gave us this).
I know all about what the Supreme Court, I just fail to see how that is related to my post or the issue. I am aware of the US system, but it seems you were unaware of the European system. Sure, the SC is a good system - I don't see anyone claiming that the UK does it better. Please take your straw man argument elsewhere.
That last one is the fifth amendment, and it would apply to the encryption case here directly. In the US, if law enforcement demands your encryption keys, you have only to plead the 5th and they can't touch you. You have the absolute right not to incriminate yourself, and it will hold up in any court in the land.
Ah, now this one is relevant, sure. As I say, no one is claiming that the UK is better. In some cases, the UK is being more authoritarian - however, there are other areas where the US is doing badly. There's no magic solution that the US has found, and there are only specific things that help in specific cases (such as the fifth amendment).
I suspect that the OP just wanted to start up a UK vs US argument, as I suspect you do too, but no one here is actually making that argument.
What theory? Who claimed that? And how does the Bill or Rights stop anything (since the US has problems with new laws too, as often discussed on Slashdot)? I'm not sure how that relates to my post...