Thanks for contributing so much to this thread that started out as an obvious pissing contest. Your dick waving has truly made Slashdot a better place.
And you Apple morons think that having a design patent on a rectangular device (yes, that patent was asserted, regardless of how much you like to deny it) with rounded corners is a reasonable thing.
At least Samsung is suing over something that's actually innovative: technology.
Juries are made up of irrational people who have been whipped into a frenzy over terrorists and pedophiles.
Just admit to yourself that this guy makes you feel icky, because you're one of those people. Quit trying to rationalize why it's a good idea to throw someone in jail for sending a text message. You're not fooling anybody but yourself.
This could have been very easily investigated by detectives, even: just use the girls' phones to send responses like, "ooh I'd like that" and see how he responds.
What the people in positions of power do have very little correspondence with what they *should* do.
We have kids here in the US getting put on the sex offender registry for creation and distribution of child pornography because their boy/girlfriends sent them naked pictures of each other. And the judges and prosecuting attorneys feel that this is a perfectly rational, reasonable thing to do -- to destroy these kids' lives before they're even out of high school to so that they can be protected from themselves.
An appeal to the authority of the judge isn't a terribly convincing argument.
The most simple explanation in this situation was that he was in fact trying to groom the kids and that the jury felt there was enough evidence to that fact to convict, hence why he was convicted for it.
Or, if you're going to go down this route that it was intentional, perhaps he was trying to see which other women in his phone book responded positively, and give himself plausible deniability for everyone else.
Jumping straight to "he's a pedophile!" is just more witch-hunting.
Seriously? I lived in a small college town of about 30k and while I was growing up, there were *two* openly gay guys that ended up either dead or just disappeared.
Perhaps you're just trying to nit-pick that technically, most gays don't get lynched -- they just get murdered by one person, a la Matthew Shepard -- but the end result is about the same. And no, it's nowhere as prevalent as the lynchings of black people in the south... but just because it isn't as bad or as visible, doesn't mean it should be ignored.
Everybody bitches about iTunes and, now, Apple's new maps is the popular thing to rag on. He doesn't exactly shake up the status quo with negative stories about those.
I think the problem that rubs people the wrong way is the government issuing an outright ban. It's "protecting me from myself" style of legislation.
Those people probably mistakenly think that the bans are about them, and take it personally. Hint: these kinds of bans aren't about you. Get over yourself.
But when they start using bans to make "the proper choice" for me, it becomes a slippery slope.
Ahh, so it goes from some sort of nebulous "but I wanna do that!" to a logical fallacy. Gotcha.
I do not understand the resistance to this. At all. You still have choices for light -- nobody is taking your lights away from you. Your choices pretty much cost the same or less over time as the old one did. The light output is very similar to the old choices. Maybe my eyes are just better than most people's, but I don't seem to have any difficulty adjusting to a different color temperature for reading or walking through the house or whatever it is that people are doing that requires extremely precise lighting conditions. The whole thing just reeks of the old vinyl vs. CD debate -- "old is what I'm used to, therefore it's better, and I'm going to keep throwing subjective 'measurements' out there until someone takes them seriously. Give me my warmer light!"
All you free marketers seem to have no idea what a local optima is.
Cheap incandescents are currently the product of a local optima as the "free market" tries to find an optimal solution. Just because something is currently a good -- or even good enough -- solution doesn't mean that it is the best solution. Think of this regulation as simulated annealing at work.
The thing that I found fascinating was that after the older style incandescents were banned in California, industry quickly went to work and found better ways to make incandescents that met the new efficiency requirements.
It's a good thing you're smarter and more insightful than all the people who actually study climate change. This little factoid (every AGW denier seems to have one) clearly must have escaped them all.
Why don't you write a paper exposing this fact? You could turn climate science on its head and in 100 years be remembered as "Tastecicles, one of the greatest scientists of the 21st century."
For as pro-science as Slashdot tends to be, it's amazing how quickly throw scientists under the bus as soon as their research forces them to examine their ideologies.
and what kind of person reaches for a gun when they feel theoretically threatened?
Apparently you do -- when some guy makes theoretical threats towards unspecified kids. Except you let the police reach for the gun on your behalf.
I normally agree with most of what you say, but you've got this one exactly backwards. Nobody should be reaching for *any* guns in this situation, because there is no situation.
When I called the cops on my neighbor, who, at 4:00 AM, threatened me with bodily harm for asking them to quiet down, the cop told me that for a threat to be considered credible, he had to be making a menacing gesture -- balled fists, carrying a weapon, etc.
If this dude didn't have loaded guns by his windows, if he wasn't staking out movement patterns of kids, if he wasn't actually, you know, doing something to make good on his 'threat', then he wasn't really making a credible threat. Just owning guns isn't (or at least shouldn't be) enough to be a credible threat -- that's perfectly legal. And I say that as somebody who's really not a big fan of guns.
A 1 minute workaround which most if not all iPhone users are already familiar with.
Until Apple decides that Google Maps competes with native functionality and de-lists them from the app store.
It still works in the Safari browser including current location through HTML5.
Yeah, using the browser-based version is nowhere *near* as feature-full as the native app. I realize that iOS users are already used to a gimped default maps app anyway, but moving it to the browser is going to lose even more functionality.
It appears to be a war between Apple and everybody else which Apple seems to be winning now on profit.
As a customer, I couldn't give a fuck about Apple winning on profit. Even if I *were* still an Apple customer, all that says is that they're able to extract more money from me than the competition.
Have you ever actually listened to Rush (or most of the rest of conservative talk radio)? Even if this quote were made up, the content is perfectly in-character for him.
Is there audio anywhere so I can tell if he's joking?
Either he's joking a *lot* -- enough that nobody would ever really know what he's serious about -- or the dude really believes the vitriol he spews on a daily basis about stereotypes his target audience hates.
Slashdot Mirror
Android is living in a ghetto.
Honest question:
Does describing Android this way make you feel better about your iPhone purchase?
--Jeremy
Yeah, McDonald's and Coca Cola's fortunes are almost *entirely* due to government contracts.
Derp.
--Jeremy
A lie by omission is still a lie. It's amazing to me how you people try to rationalize this type of behavior.
--Jeremy
Thanks for contributing so much to this thread that started out as an obvious pissing contest. Your dick waving has truly made Slashdot a better place.
--Jeremy
Read up on confirmation bias.
There's just as many Apple idiots who hate people for choosing non-Apple devices as there are Android idiots.
--Jeremy
And you Apple morons think that having a design patent on a rectangular device (yes, that patent was asserted, regardless of how much you like to deny it) with rounded corners is a reasonable thing.
At least Samsung is suing over something that's actually innovative: technology.
--Jeremy
Nobody "wants to run OSX" either, except for the very vocal minority such as yourself.
--Jeremy
Juries are made up of irrational people who have been whipped into a frenzy over terrorists and pedophiles.
Just admit to yourself that this guy makes you feel icky, because you're one of those people. Quit trying to rationalize why it's a good idea to throw someone in jail for sending a text message. You're not fooling anybody but yourself.
This could have been very easily investigated by detectives, even: just use the girls' phones to send responses like, "ooh I'd like that" and see how he responds.
--Jeremy
What the people in positions of power do have very little correspondence with what they *should* do.
We have kids here in the US getting put on the sex offender registry for creation and distribution of child pornography because their boy/girlfriends sent them naked pictures of each other. And the judges and prosecuting attorneys feel that this is a perfectly rational, reasonable thing to do -- to destroy these kids' lives before they're even out of high school to so that they can be protected from themselves.
An appeal to the authority of the judge isn't a terribly convincing argument.
--Jeremy
The most simple explanation in this situation was that he was in fact trying to groom the kids and that the jury felt there was enough evidence to that fact to convict, hence why he was convicted for it.
Or, if you're going to go down this route that it was intentional, perhaps he was trying to see which other women in his phone book responded positively, and give himself plausible deniability for everyone else.
Jumping straight to "he's a pedophile!" is just more witch-hunting.
--Jeremy
When were gays ever lynched in America?
Seriously? I lived in a small college town of about 30k and while I was growing up, there were *two* openly gay guys that ended up either dead or just disappeared.
Perhaps you're just trying to nit-pick that technically, most gays don't get lynched -- they just get murdered by one person, a la Matthew Shepard -- but the end result is about the same. And no, it's nowhere as prevalent as the lynchings of black people in the south ... but just because it isn't as bad or as visible, doesn't mean it should be ignored.
--Jeremy
The nice thing is since Apple maps do directions in the background you could use Apple for guidance, and have Waze in the foreground.
Welcome to 2009.
--Jeremy
Everybody bitches about iTunes and, now, Apple's new maps is the popular thing to rag on. He doesn't exactly shake up the status quo with negative stories about those.
--Jeremy
Obama haters sure are butthurt over that peace prize -- the one that Obama himself acknowledged he hadn't really done anything to deserve it.
--Jeremy
I don't ask Romney to fix kernel bugs just as I don't look to Linux for political advice. Both should stick to what they know.
Agreed. Both should stay far away from the White House.
--Jeremy
I think the problem that rubs people the wrong way is the government issuing an outright ban. It's "protecting me from myself" style of legislation.
Those people probably mistakenly think that the bans are about them, and take it personally. Hint: these kinds of bans aren't about you. Get over yourself.
But when they start using bans to make "the proper choice" for me, it becomes a slippery slope.
Ahh, so it goes from some sort of nebulous "but I wanna do that!" to a logical fallacy. Gotcha.
I do not understand the resistance to this. At all. You still have choices for light -- nobody is taking your lights away from you. Your choices pretty much cost the same or less over time as the old one did. The light output is very similar to the old choices. Maybe my eyes are just better than most people's, but I don't seem to have any difficulty adjusting to a different color temperature for reading or walking through the house or whatever it is that people are doing that requires extremely precise lighting conditions. The whole thing just reeks of the old vinyl vs. CD debate -- "old is what I'm used to, therefore it's better, and I'm going to keep throwing subjective 'measurements' out there until someone takes them seriously. Give me my warmer light!"
--Jeremy
All you free marketers seem to have no idea what a local optima is.
Cheap incandescents are currently the product of a local optima as the "free market" tries to find an optimal solution. Just because something is currently a good -- or even good enough -- solution doesn't mean that it is the best solution. Think of this regulation as simulated annealing at work.
The thing that I found fascinating was that after the older style incandescents were banned in California, industry quickly went to work and found better ways to make incandescents that met the new efficiency requirements.
--Jeremy
How quickly we all forget what it was like to be constantly bombarded with ads for products you cannnot use or cannot be purchased in your locale.
Wait -- when did this bombardment end? Did I miss a memo somewhere?
--Jeremy
It's a good thing you're smarter and more insightful than all the people who actually study climate change. This little factoid (every AGW denier seems to have one) clearly must have escaped them all.
Why don't you write a paper exposing this fact? You could turn climate science on its head and in 100 years be remembered as "Tastecicles, one of the greatest scientists of the 21st century."
For as pro-science as Slashdot tends to be, it's amazing how quickly throw scientists under the bus as soon as their research forces them to examine their ideologies.
--Jeremy
So, that totally depends on where you are looking from :)
Yes, if the AGW debate has taught us anything, it's that people can take selfish, greedy, short-sighted looks at just about anything.
--Jeremy
and what kind of person reaches for a gun when they feel theoretically threatened?
Apparently you do -- when some guy makes theoretical threats towards unspecified kids. Except you let the police reach for the gun on your behalf.
I normally agree with most of what you say, but you've got this one exactly backwards. Nobody should be reaching for *any* guns in this situation, because there is no situation.
--Jeremy
how do you define credible?
When I called the cops on my neighbor, who, at 4:00 AM, threatened me with bodily harm for asking them to quiet down, the cop told me that for a threat to be considered credible, he had to be making a menacing gesture -- balled fists, carrying a weapon, etc.
If this dude didn't have loaded guns by his windows, if he wasn't staking out movement patterns of kids, if he wasn't actually, you know, doing something to make good on his 'threat', then he wasn't really making a credible threat. Just owning guns isn't (or at least shouldn't be) enough to be a credible threat -- that's perfectly legal. And I say that as somebody who's really not a big fan of guns.
--Jeremy
A 1 minute workaround which most if not all iPhone users are already familiar with.
Until Apple decides that Google Maps competes with native functionality and de-lists them from the app store.
It still works in the Safari browser including current location through HTML5.
Yeah, using the browser-based version is nowhere *near* as feature-full as the native app. I realize that iOS users are already used to a gimped default maps app anyway, but moving it to the browser is going to lose even more functionality.
--Jeremy
It appears to be a war between Apple and everybody else which Apple seems to be winning now on profit.
As a customer, I couldn't give a fuck about Apple winning on profit. Even if I *were* still an Apple customer, all that says is that they're able to extract more money from me than the competition.
--Jeremy
Have you ever actually listened to Rush (or most of the rest of conservative talk radio)? Even if this quote were made up, the content is perfectly in-character for him.
Is there audio anywhere so I can tell if he's joking?
Either he's joking a *lot* -- enough that nobody would ever really know what he's serious about -- or the dude really believes the vitriol he spews on a daily basis about stereotypes his target audience hates.
--Jeremy