If they want to point fingers at technology enabling these riots, then they should indict public transportation as well. Given many statements to the press that the people participating in these riots seem to have come from all over London, I seriously doubt they all walked or drove to Tottenham or whatever riot spot was on schedule. Odds are great many rode public transportation to get there.
The question is, in the modern day and age, can you truly have freedom of speech without Internet access? It's become so vital to communicate, and such a powerful tool, having access the internet is a safeguard against tyranny, just as a soapbox was before it.
The right to freedom of speech is constantly confused with a presumed right to an audience or platform. Although we have freedom of speech as a right here in the USA, that does not translate to a guarantee that your thoughts will be printed in the local paper or aired over the local radio or TV station. If you want to publish your manifesto as per your right, good luck getting the magazine of your choice to print it on your behalf. You don't have unfettered access to any street corner to preach your truth. Your right to free speech is not a right to any outlet.
What your right provides is a protection for you against the government taking deliberate action to prevent your exercising the freedom to speak your mind. With them out of the way, you are free to negotiate with others to distribute your ideas and/or create your own outlets through which to share them. So I think whether you have Internet access is no different than whether you have access to publish a regular column in the local paper or host a show on the local media stations.
Freedom of speech does not mandate access to an audience.
There should be a law. If you're to fucking stupid to realize what The Onion is, or that something came from The Onion, you don't get to comment about politics. Ever.
Actually, there should be a law that if you do not have sufficient critical thinking skills to suspect that something like that video might be a hoax or at least have some level of suspicion that it is not exactly what it appears to be, you don't get to comment on politics.
Also, we need another law. If you want to call out others as being stupid, you must be able to correctly distinguish between and use correctly the words "to," "too" and "two."
So, what you're saying is you'll take Consumer Reports' anecdotes instead?
I would. They certainly have an established reputation for impartiality. Doesn't mean everything they say is gospel truth, but as a starting stance, I'll give them more weight than what I would give someone about whom I know little or nothing.
The problem is that what made the Android OS a serious competitor to Apple was that it wasn't locked. If all phones running Android are locked as tight as an Iphone, I may as well get the Iphone and the "coolness" of owning an Apple product.
With the iPhone 4 I can in fact reproduce the signal drop when held in my left hand, going pretty dramatically from 4 bars to only 1, but even at 1 bar the performance is outstanding and for the first time ever I've got a 100% reliable and fast connection here.[...]
So I'm not downplaying the drop in signal strength issue, as that is there when you hold it left handed (and I do usually), but that in practice it performs better, even a lot better, then my iPhone 3GS.
You are simply providing yet another anecdote to try to demonstrate that there is no problem. The issue isn't a visible drop in signal strength. It is, for apparently many people, a loss of connection. Sure, you don't have that where you happen to be. But other people are having these issues.
If you read the article, Kagen seems to think that the Government should have the power to outlaw the production of pornography altogether.[...]
“Statutes may be crafted in ways that prohibit the worst of hate speech and pornography, language that goes to sexual violence. Such statutes may still be constitutional,” Kagan assured the meeting. She pressed for “new and harsher penalties against the kinds of violence against women that takes place in producing pornography, the use of pandering statutes and pimp statutes against pornographersperhaps the initiation—the enactment of new statutes prohibiting the hiring of women for commercial purposes to engage in sexual activities.”
So, we can outlaw the production of pornography (by making it illegal to pay actresses for performing in it) and whatever the Government deems to be "hate" speech. So much for the 1st amendment. So where's the outrage from the civil libertarians in the Democratic Party? Russ Feingold, I'm looking at you.....
Why is it always just the women who are presumed to be victimized here anyhow? There is plenty of porn with men involved too. Shall we assume they also are suffering from violence against them since they are in porn? It sounds like Kagan is asserting that women are in porn only because they are being forced into it.
Laws to prevent true violence and coercion are one thing. But it sure sounds like she is actually pushing a veiled reason to enact laws to enforce a particular moral view.
You may not like them; you may not like their products; you may not like their policies; you may not like their procedures but, let's be serious, the company is not evil.
You are correct. However, I won't waste my time trying to find your similar defense of Microsoft when they have been repeatedly called evil here at./.
"But pressing the winkey, start typing a name or command and pressing enter to launch about anything you can think of in Win7 is "easy" in my book."
If you know exactly what app you want yes, but its really not any better than opening up a terminal window and writing the app name.
You don't really need to "know exactly what app you want." It's actually a search tool, much like Google, and we all know how easy that is. Truth is, it is a pretty useful feature.
1. Adobe Flash is buggy and crashes a lot. Steve Jobs also seems to have a personal beef with it for some reason.
2. Apple says, "No flash on our iAnything platforms."
3. Adobe says, "Please?"
4. Apple says, "No!"
5. Adobe says, "Okay, we've made a compiler that takes a Flash script and compiles it to an iAnything native application, using HTML 5, Apple's C-variant, and Apple's API."
6. Apple says, "We've added a clause to our developer contract that says that developers are not allowed to use anything that translates code from one language to another for the iAnything platform. You have to use OUR tools, and you must write in OUR language from the start, or you - the developer - cannot play with us."
7. Adobe says, "..."
The longer story:
1. Adobe chose to target MS platforms over Apple's offerings at a time when Apple was near death and desperately needed that investment.
2. Apple recovered anyhow and rebounded with a vengeance, delivering OSX, the iPod, iPhone and iPad.
3. Adobe seeks support for their product on Apple platforms, but are turned down.
4. Apples decision is rationalized as "Adobe Flash is buggy and crashes a lot." In truth, Steve Jobs has a personal beef with them -- hardly a surprise.
5. etc...
Oh, right, I forgot, under modern antitrust laws you're allowed to be a total anti-competitive asshole until you become the 800lb gorilla.
These "modern" anti-trust laws are a century old, and were instituted because of abuses by 800 lb gorillas like Standard Oil. Microsoft has a monopoly, Apple doesn't; that's the difference, and it's a difference that matters.
All true. However, we have all seen countless postings here on/. by MS-bashers and Apple fans berating MS because MS was wrong in principle. That is, it was repeatedly declared as evil the practice of tightly controlling an architecture, rather than making it open. And it is at that level that Apple is, obviously, no better.
Root for Apple. Apple creates significant markets regardless of their unattractiveness.
But wait a sec -- I just read several "Insightful" comments above yours that assert Apple has no monopoly in any market. Are you saying Apple creates significant markets but fails to dominate them?
Yes, those are different. They agreed to release those as singles. Doesn't change the fact that their contract with EMI says that EMI can not sell their albums as anything but the full album without PF's consent.
Um, I was addressing the concept that Pink Floyd's music "is meant to be listened to as a whole...", not the terms of their contract with EMI. The band's intent apparently was not to ensure the music is heard only as a whole, since they obviously agreed to release songs off those albums as singles. Granted, I far prefer hearing their whole albums, but that romantic view that they were seeking to preserve the artistic integrity of the whole work does not jive with the fact they released albums from those whole works.
Pink Floyd's music is meant to be listened to as a whole, albums are (the good ones) carefully prepared and are one piece of music story.
Except for the singles the band agreed to release, right? You know, "Money," "Us and Them," "Have a cigar," "Wish You Were Here," "Another Brick in the Wall," etc.
Also because it isn't intended - or marketed - to be a general-purpose computing device. The nature of the device is a choice by the people who make and sell it, and is a contrast to their general-purpose computing product line, the Macintosh.
Again, I suppose you can claim that the only reason the segway isn't an aircraft is because it doesn't fly, but if so you're missing the point.
No one disputes that Apple intended this to be a closed architecture. The point is that it could easily be a more general purpose device if the consumer were allowed that choice. That is far different from suggesting the only reason a Segway doesn't fly is the manufacturer just blocked that capability in it.
No. Apple is just like any other business that seeks to hold onto a monopoly. MS, Comcast, Cox, OPEC... they all act alike because they all share the same fundamental fear of loss. They don't want to lose the market, or the money that comes with it. It's basic human instinct made manifest at the mega-corporate level.
And how does that equate to "No?" What you described is the behavior MS engaged in and have been condemned for.
For one, if you're geeky enough to use the word in casual speech, you might well find people who freak out at such vocabulary to be tiresome, so using the term works as a kind of social self selection.
Apparently, for him, it has worked too well. Thus this/. topic.
If it was inevitable that I would die if I drove a car, I would chose not to drive. I would find another way to get where I needed to be and/or change my life in such a way that I didn't need to be there. That would increase my safety as well as the safety of the devil-may-cares who insist on driving. As the risks of driving go down, I would be more inclined to actually drive and assume additional risks while driving.
I agree that complacency would start to slip in over time. It would be held in check, however, by the relative frequency of drivers paying for their lack of care by suffering impalement. In other words, there is a risk/reward payoff we all calculate at some level and I think with less safe cars, people will, on average, decide to be somewhat safer in their driving habits. They may not sustain that initial level of vigilance all the time, but they will maintain a higher level of vigilance than they would in a non-spear-equiped car.
Slashdot Mirror
If they want to point fingers at technology enabling these riots, then they should indict public transportation as well. Given many statements to the press that the people participating in these riots seem to have come from all over London, I seriously doubt they all walked or drove to Tottenham or whatever riot spot was on schedule. Odds are great many rode public transportation to get there.
The question is, in the modern day and age, can you truly have freedom of speech without Internet access? It's become so vital to communicate, and such a powerful tool, having access the internet is a safeguard against tyranny, just as a soapbox was before it.
The right to freedom of speech is constantly confused with a presumed right to an audience or platform. Although we have freedom of speech as a right here in the USA, that does not translate to a guarantee that your thoughts will be printed in the local paper or aired over the local radio or TV station. If you want to publish your manifesto as per your right, good luck getting the magazine of your choice to print it on your behalf. You don't have unfettered access to any street corner to preach your truth. Your right to free speech is not a right to any outlet.
What your right provides is a protection for you against the government taking deliberate action to prevent your exercising the freedom to speak your mind. With them out of the way, you are free to negotiate with others to distribute your ideas and/or create your own outlets through which to share them. So I think whether you have Internet access is no different than whether you have access to publish a regular column in the local paper or host a show on the local media stations.
Freedom of speech does not mandate access to an audience.
Funny that, the New York Times and The Guardian pissing on the guy doing the job they failed to do.
You mean they failed to receive the windfall that Pfc. Manning provided Assange?
Not all apps are as stable as you'd like. You need something to press to exit to your home screen if your app decides it just wants to freeze...
Not a problem! Just pop the battery... oh wait...
Thanks a lot, Global Warming!
There should be a law. If you're to fucking stupid to realize what The Onion is, or that something came from The Onion, you don't get to comment about politics. Ever.
Actually, there should be a law that if you do not have sufficient critical thinking skills to suspect that something like that video might be a hoax or at least have some level of suspicion that it is not exactly what it appears to be, you don't get to comment on politics.
Also, we need another law. If you want to call out others as being stupid, you must be able to correctly distinguish between and use correctly the words "to," "too" and "two."
Because when I drop a phone, it's always going to be face down.
The iCat mini-applet ensures it will always land face down.
So, what you're saying is you'll take Consumer Reports' anecdotes instead?
I would. They certainly have an established reputation for impartiality. Doesn't mean everything they say is gospel truth, but as a starting stance, I'll give them more weight than what I would give someone about whom I know little or nothing.
The problem is that what made the Android OS a serious competitor to Apple was that it wasn't locked. If all phones running Android are locked as tight as an Iphone, I may as well get the Iphone and the "coolness" of owning an Apple product.
Fixed that for you! ;-)
With the iPhone 4 I can in fact reproduce the signal drop when held in my left hand, going pretty dramatically from 4 bars to only 1, but even at 1 bar the performance is outstanding and for the first time ever I've got a 100% reliable and fast connection here.[...]
So I'm not downplaying the drop in signal strength issue, as that is there when you hold it left handed (and I do usually), but that in practice it performs better, even a lot better, then my iPhone 3GS.
You are simply providing yet another anecdote to try to demonstrate that there is no problem. The issue isn't a visible drop in signal strength. It is, for apparently many people, a loss of connection. Sure, you don't have that where you happen to be. But other people are having these issues.
If you read the article, Kagen seems to think that the Government should have the power to outlaw the production of pornography altogether.[...]
“Statutes may be crafted in ways that prohibit the worst of hate speech and pornography, language that goes to sexual violence. Such statutes may still be constitutional,” Kagan assured the meeting. She pressed for “new and harsher penalties against the kinds of violence against women that takes place in producing pornography, the use of pandering statutes and pimp statutes against pornographersperhaps the initiation—the enactment of new statutes prohibiting the hiring of women for commercial purposes to engage in sexual activities.”
So, we can outlaw the production of pornography (by making it illegal to pay actresses for performing in it) and whatever the Government deems to be "hate" speech. So much for the 1st amendment. So where's the outrage from the civil libertarians in the Democratic Party? Russ Feingold, I'm looking at you.....
Why is it always just the women who are presumed to be victimized here anyhow? There is plenty of porn with men involved too. Shall we assume they also are suffering from violence against them since they are in porn? It sounds like Kagan is asserting that women are in porn only because they are being forced into it.
Laws to prevent true violence and coercion are one thing. But it sure sounds like she is actually pushing a veiled reason to enact laws to enforce a particular moral view.
You may not like them; you may not like their products; you may not like their policies; you may not like their procedures but, let's be serious, the company is not evil.
You are correct. However, I won't waste my time trying to find your similar defense of Microsoft when they have been repeatedly called evil here at ./.
"But pressing the winkey, start typing a name or command and pressing enter to launch about anything you can think of in Win7 is "easy" in my book."
If you know exactly what app you want yes, but its really not any better than opening up a terminal window and writing the app name.
You don't really need to "know exactly what app you want." It's actually a search tool, much like Google, and we all know how easy that is. Truth is, it is a pretty useful feature.
The long version:
1. Adobe Flash is buggy and crashes a lot. Steve Jobs also seems to have a personal beef with it for some reason.
2. Apple says, "No flash on our iAnything platforms."
3. Adobe says, "Please?"
4. Apple says, "No!"
5. Adobe says, "Okay, we've made a compiler that takes a Flash script and compiles it to an iAnything native application, using HTML 5, Apple's C-variant, and Apple's API."
6. Apple says, "We've added a clause to our developer contract that says that developers are not allowed to use anything that translates code from one language to another for the iAnything platform. You have to use OUR tools, and you must write in OUR language from the start, or you - the developer - cannot play with us." 7. Adobe says, "..."
The longer story:
1. Adobe chose to target MS platforms over Apple's offerings at a time when Apple was near death and desperately needed that investment.
2. Apple recovered anyhow and rebounded with a vengeance, delivering OSX, the iPod, iPhone and iPad.
3. Adobe seeks support for their product on Apple platforms, but are turned down.
4. Apples decision is rationalized as "Adobe Flash is buggy and crashes a lot." In truth, Steve Jobs has a personal beef with them -- hardly a surprise.
5. etc...
Oh, right, I forgot, under modern antitrust laws you're allowed to be a total anti-competitive asshole until you become the 800lb gorilla.
These "modern" anti-trust laws are a century old, and were instituted because of abuses by 800 lb gorillas like Standard Oil. Microsoft has a monopoly, Apple doesn't; that's the difference, and it's a difference that matters.
All true. However, we have all seen countless postings here on /. by MS-bashers and Apple fans berating MS because MS was wrong in principle. That is, it was repeatedly declared as evil the practice of tightly controlling an architecture, rather than making it open. And it is at that level that Apple is, obviously, no better.
Root for Apple. Apple creates significant markets regardless of their unattractiveness.
But wait a sec -- I just read several "Insightful" comments above yours that assert Apple has no monopoly in any market. Are you saying Apple creates significant markets but fails to dominate them?
So it IS just a large ipod!
My daughter calls it an iTouch for fat people!
Yes, those are different. They agreed to release those as singles. Doesn't change the fact that their contract with EMI says that EMI can not sell their albums as anything but the full album without PF's consent.
Um, I was addressing the concept that Pink Floyd's music "is meant to be listened to as a whole...", not the terms of their contract with EMI. The band's intent apparently was not to ensure the music is heard only as a whole, since they obviously agreed to release songs off those albums as singles. Granted, I far prefer hearing their whole albums, but that romantic view that they were seeking to preserve the artistic integrity of the whole work does not jive with the fact they released albums from those whole works.
Pink Floyd's music is meant to be listened to as a whole, albums are (the good ones) carefully prepared and are one piece of music story.
Except for the singles the band agreed to release, right? You know, "Money," "Us and Them," "Have a cigar," "Wish You Were Here," "Another Brick in the Wall," etc.
Gahhh!!! Never forget Rule No. 4: Doubletap!
No, not "only" because it's locked down.
Also because it isn't intended - or marketed - to be a general-purpose computing device. The nature of the device is a choice by the people who make and sell it, and is a contrast to their general-purpose computing product line, the Macintosh.
Again, I suppose you can claim that the only reason the segway isn't an aircraft is because it doesn't fly, but if so you're missing the point.
No one disputes that Apple intended this to be a closed architecture. The point is that it could easily be a more general purpose device if the consumer were allowed that choice. That is far different from suggesting the only reason a Segway doesn't fly is the manufacturer just blocked that capability in it.
>>>In other words, Apple is the new Microsoft
No. Apple is just like any other business that seeks to hold onto a monopoly. MS, Comcast, Cox, OPEC... they all act alike because they all share the same fundamental fear of loss. They don't want to lose the market, or the money that comes with it. It's basic human instinct made manifest at the mega-corporate level.
And how does that equate to "No?" What you described is the behavior MS engaged in and have been condemned for.
Apparently, for him, it has worked too well. Thus this /. topic.
If it was inevitable that I would die if I drove a car, I would chose not to drive. I would find another way to get where I needed to be and/or change my life in such a way that I didn't need to be there. That would increase my safety as well as the safety of the devil-may-cares who insist on driving. As the risks of driving go down, I would be more inclined to actually drive and assume additional risks while driving.
I agree that complacency would start to slip in over time. It would be held in check, however, by the relative frequency of drivers paying for their lack of care by suffering impalement. In other words, there is a risk/reward payoff we all calculate at some level and I think with less safe cars, people will, on average, decide to be somewhat safer in their driving habits. They may not sustain that initial level of vigilance all the time, but they will maintain a higher level of vigilance than they would in a non-spear-equiped car.