I really don't know at what point on Microsoft's timeline you are referring to here...M$ has never had clarity...they've practically defined an era in computing with their inscrutible, abusive user interface and organizational infighting.
You're only seeing 'clarity' in comparison to total chaos. Compared to the options, M$ had 'clarity'... Microsoft was the only option for a business computer for at least a decade, mostly because government contracts (taxpayer $$$) gave them the capital to exist.
Compared to other successful tools for human work....Microsoft has been total shit from day 1 and nothing more than a wholesale re-invention of their business model (not a 'change in direction') will result in anything truly 'good' from them.
No matter what, in M$'s present mode of operation, fire whatever CEO they want...change the mission statement...WHATEVER...means nothing.
The business was founded off-kilter...it's like when they aimed Voyager...
Like the Voyager craft, huge corps like Microsoft cannot correct a course once they are on it (small adjustments aside)...when they launch, according to Microsoft's business model, they are stuck in that mode until the mission dies.
Microsoft was not the right company for the task when they got the government contracts that got them started...that misfire of trajectory, combined with a business structure that actively opposes any feedback or change would have killed the company long ago in a competitive market.
Microsoft had no competition in the US for over a decade!
agree...HuffPo is probably doing this to bottleneck users into giving up personal data...but where in TFA do you see that they will use Facebook exclusively?
They might use Disquss (which I hate) or there are a few others out there...
FTA:
hiding behind anonymity
This is what I hate...'trolls' could be post-bots posting anonymously just as much as the more traditional 40 yr old IT guy in his mom's basement troll...
It's wrong to lump all misuse of anonymous into one basket and say they're 'hiding'...slashdot mildly shames anon commentors by calling the 'cowards' but that's it...we anons can still comment
By default, the iPod preferences in iTunes did NOT allow for the user to add or delete files to their iPod.
Your wording is confusing. Are you claiming that it was impossible to manually manage the media on an iPod, or only that the DEFAULT setting was for it to happen automatically?
naw man, I meant only the default setting was for it to happen automatically...
the 'by default' part at the beginning should be a clue....'iPod preferences in iTunes' also is helpful...theoretically someone could still be confused...
but no, no sir, you are not as confused as you think you are...indeed the obvious of the two options seemingly confusing you is the correct option
Doesn't make a difference on Greenwald's end. Either way my criticism stands.
Both Snowden and Greenwald have said they planned this out for months. No where, in any discussion or public statement, have they ever indicated that Greenwald told Snowden of his options.
Snowden and Greenwald are doing this for their own selfish reasons and you don't have a shred of proof otherwise.
Here's another piece of evidence: Snowden's revelations were already known **IN 2006** read it and weep:
The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY. The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime.
All Snowden did was reveal top secret information about the names of the different programs....NOT WHAT THEY DO IN SUBSTANCE
Remember all the fuss about the Patriot Act? We *all* know how much the Bush admin did to trample our privacy post-9/11.
Making Snowden's revelations heroic and groundbreaking requires some art and a bit of self-delusion....
Same with defending Greenwald's journalism choices...
To falsify my contention think of this: If Greenwald *had* done the right thing, it would be part of their narrative. Greenwald or Snowden both would talk about it. We would have *some* evidence, in all the talk of why they did this and their thought process and contacting the documentary filmaker woman...on and on...
If they had done the right thing intellectually and professionally we would have heard about it.
Snowden is a troll...Greenwald is his flamebait amplifyer, and the non-tech media are the fuel for the fire
No one, and I repeat no one has tried to counter my evidence...i just get modded 'troll'...but no one offers a response
here's what I mean: He should have done the professional journalist move and **release Snowden's info anonymously**
Greenwald and the Guardian would then assume the risk. The US government could subpeona him to reveal his source, and if he refused he would be jailed for up to 6-9 months...but then he'd be let go. Source intact....with major book deal and street cred.
Instead, it seems like Snowden was duped (or fooled himself) into thinking he was a people's hero and he went public.
There are reports that Greenwald is shopping around a Snowden exclusive interview for 7 figures. They haven't been directly denied by Snowden's team but he did release a statement.
It's stinks to high heaven! Greenwald is a villain in this...at the least he's a smarmy bottom feeder journalist who mislead Snowden for his own career gain.
I've been keeping up on the discussion and I guess I'll have to now put myself in the "see both sides" camp as well...
See, I came from a small farming town in the midwest, and I had friends who, while trying to be a 'good friend' actually held me back intellectually...their advice sometimes narrowed my horizons...
However, in my life (and I suspect but can't prove that it'll be true for everyone) that the net effect of my friend's advice has been decidedly positive.
See, I also had a friend back home who gave me the "Good Will Hunting" speech...like when Ben Affleck's construction worker tells Damon's character, "If you're still around here in 10 years, fuck you...get out and do something..."
So...yes...some friends are better than others, but we learn to weight their advice accordingly...
every single thing that is wrong with the tech industry is also, somehow, Bill Gates' fault.
FTFY
for real, Steve Jobs is overrated as an 'tech innovator' I'll grant you...I could go on all day about it...
but there's no evidence that Jobs' legacy is as bad as you say...IMHO it is the reverse...
Jobs' wasn't an engineer. He was a marketer. We make a serious mistake when we look at major decisions Steve Jobs made and treat them as some sort of pattern for emulation.
He was hard headed and understood, as many salesman do, that you have to make a personal connection with the user.
He pushed through ideas whether they made sense or not based on his wild-eyed notions 'innovation'. Because American business is so risk-averse and because the competition was so egregiously poorly designed, by the law of averages some of his 'innovations' paid off well.
One that kills me is how, by fiat, Jobs decreed that the iPod 'just work' when you plug it in...
For over a decade, I'd have friends/family ask me for help 'putting music on my iPod'...because due to Jobs' wild-eyed 'user centered design' decree, the iPod would, when connected, automatically open itunes and start downloading your entire.mp3 library to the ipod, no matter how much space the ipod had or how big your music folder was...
It would start seemingly at a random place and go alphabetically until it was full.
By default, the iPod preferences in iTunes did NOT allow for the user to add or delete files to their iPod.
Non-tech friends/family would assume this is just how it worked...maybe make playlists to add songs.
It was ridiculous.
There are other examples.
Jobs' weilded user-centered design principles like barbarian...by sheer lack of options from competitors it was, comparitively 'more usable'...
If your friends saw you making what to them might be a mistake, wouldn't you want them to talk to you?
right?
OP must be trolling but at the same time, I can kind of envision a kind of person who would make a comment like his and mean it genuinely.
for those without good friends: this is what friends do! it is kind of defining characteristic...people that care enough about you to do something you might not like, risking angering you, because they feel so strongly you are making a mistake
it saddens me that such a comment as that from OP - 'butt out!' could plausibly be non-trollface. I have met people in my professional life who I can imagine possibly being so disconnected as to think this way...and in a way it hurts our whole industry.
being disconnect from others causes us to make abstract and difficult to use interfaces and methods....further enforcing the tech/non-tech divide and wasting huge ammounts of resources
the good guys in Syria are, obviously, the groups trying to enact democratic reforms in the Syrian government
by your logic, all someone has to do to discredit any democracy revolution is get one Agent Provaceteur to pose as an 'Al-Qaeda operative' and pretend to be on teh side of the rebels, then blog about it and have some of your tech's put his stuff on a known 'Al-Qaeda' website
just because some random group says they oppose Assad and are 'Al-Qaeda' doesn't prove me wrong or you right one bit.
it's obvious that the many pro-DEMOCRACY rebels in Syria are the 'good guys'
The US government wants Asad out even if it means putting Al-Qaeda "in".
so....let me get this straight...you claim that...
The US is trying to oust Assad.
Ok I can agree with that...
The US doesn't care or is actively encouraging 'Al-Queda' to become the new 'leader'?
It really makes no sense. "The US" is Obama's foreign policy...what our government does. You cannot provide one shred of evidence, logically or by links to quotations, that "the US wants Al Qaeda in"
Take any policy of the Obama State dept towards the Arab spring. In all cases 'the US' supported the side demanding democracy (to the point it could publicly, without discrediting the rebels as having foreign funding)...
You need to read up on the Arab Spring. While your at it, refresh yourself on Iranian history from pre-WWI to present. Note when Iran released the US hostages in 1980.
Free Syrian Army = Illuminati/Aristocracy contractors
Probably eastern european, just by odds...but I wouldn't be surprised if it was an American company...
Hell it could be the same company that gets all the AC bots here on/.
Democracy in Syria would significantly harm some old and relied-upon revenue streams for rich white people (oil from Iran to England).
Our governments have been installing figurehead assholes in that region for centuries and Assad is no different.
These attacks are to provoke conflict in the region to overwhelm the 'Arab Spring'-type democracy movement that was happening in Syria.
The global elites don't want Syria to become like Lybia....doing these 'hacking' attacks is an easy way for them to prop-up the 'bad guys' in Syria without doing anything to provoke US/UN intervention.
By doing this stuff they keep the status quo...which is a victory for them, given that Syrians were about to take back their democracy.
Considering the circumstances...I doubt anyone reading this could have achieved more.
I know I'm 'feeding the trolls' but I'm asking for alternatives...I think the Obama bashing here on/. is reductive at best and done by chatbots at worst...either way it's tearing down the level of discussion.
Respond with **what you would have done differently as President**
Remember: You start in 2008 needing GOP votes to pass health care, and in 2010 the House Speaker says they oppose *anything* you do regardless of policy in order to get you voted out.
That's where you start with your scenario.
You say 'Obama is horrible' or 'Obama is as bad as Bush' then **prove it by offering a realistic alternative** to actual policy choices. What should he have done?
Also, you have to describe how you get the **entire intelligence community** to go with whatever changes you are making (ex: "man, if I was president I would have cancelled all the NSA programs and made them public on day one")...in the middle of TWO WARS. Note that the President can't just by fiat declassify all government secrets...he has to go through procedure.
So start there...if you aren't trolling I'll respond...you must address at least the issues I laid out in your response.
If you can't muster an actual viable response to this challenge then you prove yourself to be pure tollface trash...stop posting here!
The Internet isn't some kludged-together hack like everything that runs on top of it.
I AGREE! ARGH!
we can shout at each other about things we seem to agree upon, or maybe the answer is in terminology...the words we're using the represent our ideas...
see, I agree with your response here:
The code is horseshit, but the hardware is so fast it doesn't matter
That's exactly the kind of thinking that makes everything suck. It does matter.
heh...it does matter! in theory...practically speaking the world has managed to forrest gump its way to what we have...the capabilities, cheesey and consumer driven though the design may be, are pretty impressive
but theory matters of course...it drives everything...I agree computing theory especially presentation layer stuff is horseshit and further agree that revising the internet languages (or making new ones) based on Bayesian, post-Turing, post-'ai', cybernetic and linguistically grounded computing theory would drastically improve everything about internetworked technology!
Because browsers suck, HTML sucks, Javascript sucks, CSS sucks and the web sucks unless you are using it to display text and a few images.
What, are you typing from 1996?
Netflix, smartphones, and hell even just a cursory reading of what the NSA can do to spy on us proves you wrong....
About the last part at least!
I agree that X, Y, and Z web coding laguages suck! Also flash sucks!
I'm trained as a network engineer. To me it's all stupid bullshit....like tags they put on clothes at the store to make you but them...
You know how some people keep the tag on their hat or w/e even after they buy it as 'style'?
That's what 90% of software looks like to me....I get where you're coming from...but the internet does pretty much everything now. Hell, you can do live HD TV broadcasts over the internet now.
The code is horseshit, but the hardware is so fast it doesn't matter....that's why it works...I hate it...I probably hate it as much as any human alive...but you're dead wrong about the internet's capabilities...in spite of shittily created coding languages to do it
The WHATWG is an example of a working group that would agree with you. They'r ethe ones who got HTML5 off the ground despite the WC3's best efforts
always target your code for individual browsers, since every browser is different, and will be forever.
As an AC said above, "You are Wrong!"
There is *absolutely* no technical reason that internetworked computers *must* use different mechanisms at the presentation layer. Absolutely no logical reason to have the standards be different for any reason.
In practice, due to economics or usability concerns, browser makers make their browsers to operate in ways to accomplish non-computing goals....branding.
Just because M$ tries to format lock users into M$ everything...even in their browser design...just because they are that evil doesn't mean that your premise is by default the logical conclusion.
The internet is what **we** make it! Accept that fact.
Don't expect any technical details in the link, but essentially every household utility meter is WiFi enabled and networked to send the data to a central server downtown.
The network is slow, obviously, but it works for email and youtube better than dial up. Faster with a better signal but still ADSL speeds.
Yes. Everyone agrees with this statement. Don't need 'cognitive science' to tell you that...
You spend some on a conversation, its less for driving.
Wrong. You're assuming being a fully 'safe' drive requires 100% of our brain's resources.
There is a finite ammount of attention and concentration needed to safely operate a vehicle. The rest is up to you...there's no other way it could be.
Your problem, and every 'texting while driving' Nazi is you make illogical and imprecise distinctions among **ALL** kinds of distractions...assigning weight to one over the other with absolutely no evidence for it.
ex: eating while driving
for some, 'eating while driving' means snagging a quick handful of trail mix at a stoplight....others, they've got their McD's burger box open with fries in one side, driving with the knee while they open a packet of ketchup so they can dip their fries
another ex:
Use of technology. Pushing buttons on a car stereo remote vs touching an iphone touchscreen. What's the difference??? One is to send a text, or type a name into a map, the other is to control the stereo.
In order to be logical, these bans have to cover **any** distraction...eating, applying makeup, reading newspaper (yes I've seen it got pics of the dude to prove it, was in chicago on the loop), texting, using GPS, reading a paper map, lighting a cigarette, arguing with a passenger....
These 'driver safety' laws won't have any effect until they are worded to allow for the complexity of human behavior.
In Oregon, the law is that you must be able to put two hands on the wheel at any time. That's step in the right direction IMHO
I remember the Diamond Rio now, I probably saw it in Wired or Time or w/e, but I didn't know all this time about the RIAA court case!
RIAA v Diamond is an important decision....definitely would include it in every contemporary history class...what would the iPhone look like today if the RIAA had lost?
Having a CEO of a major fortune 500 company is not going to improve objectivity.
Are you saying that the owner outright of a newspaper doesn't have the ability to affect its content?
Or are you saying that all changes in newpaper leadership always lead to **more** bias?
it has to be one or the other for your argument to be consistent...and neither of those options are valid
ownership matters...even if they 'keep the same editorial staff' or w/e...it matters
will the paper have bias? yes...but all papers have **some** bias...see, the difference is, some view it as their **job** as journalists to eject or minimize bias, other news orgs do not put objectivity as a high priority
Bezos will IMHO make the paper less biased than it is now...an improvement. For the reasons I stated.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't know at what point on Microsoft's timeline you are referring to here...M$ has never had clarity...they've practically defined an era in computing with their inscrutible, abusive user interface and organizational infighting.
You're only seeing 'clarity' in comparison to total chaos. Compared to the options, M$ had 'clarity'... Microsoft was the only option for a business computer for at least a decade, mostly because government contracts (taxpayer $$$) gave them the capital to exist.
Compared to other successful tools for human work....Microsoft has been total shit from day 1 and nothing more than a wholesale re-invention of their business model (not a 'change in direction') will result in anything truly 'good' from them.
No matter what, in M$'s present mode of operation, fire whatever CEO they want...change the mission statement...WHATEVER...means nothing.
The business was founded off-kilter...it's like when they aimed Voyager...
Like the Voyager craft, huge corps like Microsoft cannot correct a course once they are on it (small adjustments aside)...when they launch, according to Microsoft's business model, they are stuck in that mode until the mission dies.
Microsoft was not the right company for the task when they got the government contracts that got them started...that misfire of trajectory, combined with a business structure that actively opposes any feedback or change would have killed the company long ago in a competitive market.
Microsoft had no competition in the US for over a decade!
agree...HuffPo is probably doing this to bottleneck users into giving up personal data...but where in TFA do you see that they will use Facebook exclusively?
They might use Disquss (which I hate) or there are a few others out there...
FTA:
This is what I hate...'trolls' could be post-bots posting anonymously just as much as the more traditional 40 yr old IT guy in his mom's basement troll...
It's wrong to lump all misuse of anonymous into one basket and say they're 'hiding'...slashdot mildly shames anon commentors by calling the 'cowards' but that's it...we anons can still comment
Your wording is confusing. Are you claiming that it was impossible to manually manage the media on an iPod, or only that the DEFAULT setting was for it to happen automatically?
naw man, I meant only the default setting was for it to happen automatically...
the 'by default' part at the beginning should be a clue....'iPod preferences in iTunes' also is helpful...theoretically someone could still be confused...
but no, no sir, you are not as confused as you think you are...indeed the obvious of the two options seemingly confusing you is the correct option
Doesn't make a difference on Greenwald's end. Either way my criticism stands.
Both Snowden and Greenwald have said they planned this out for months. No where, in any discussion or public statement, have they ever indicated that Greenwald told Snowden of his options.
Snowden and Greenwald are doing this for their own selfish reasons and you don't have a shred of proof otherwise.
Here's another piece of evidence: Snowden's revelations were already known **IN 2006** read it and weep:
www.yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
FTA:
All Snowden did was reveal top secret information about the names of the different programs....NOT WHAT THEY DO IN SUBSTANCE
Remember all the fuss about the Patriot Act? We *all* know how much the Bush admin did to trample our privacy post-9/11.
Making Snowden's revelations heroic and groundbreaking requires some art and a bit of self-delusion....
Same with defending Greenwald's journalism choices...
To falsify my contention think of this: If Greenwald *had* done the right thing, it would be part of their narrative. Greenwald or Snowden both would talk about it. We would have *some* evidence, in all the talk of why they did this and their thought process and contacting the documentary filmaker woman...on and on...
If they had done the right thing intellectually and professionally we would have heard about it.
Snowden is a troll...Greenwald is his flamebait amplifyer, and the non-tech media are the fuel for the fire
No one, and I repeat no one has tried to counter my evidence...i just get modded 'troll'...but no one offers a response
'crook' as in he is 'crooked'...
here's what I mean: He should have done the professional journalist move and **release Snowden's info anonymously**
Greenwald and the Guardian would then assume the risk. The US government could subpeona him to reveal his source, and if he refused he would be jailed for up to 6-9 months...but then he'd be let go. Source intact....with major book deal and street cred.
And Snowden would have been able to keep his job, just like Deep Throat from Watergate
Instead, it seems like Snowden was duped (or fooled himself) into thinking he was a people's hero and he went public.
There are reports that Greenwald is shopping around a Snowden exclusive interview for 7 figures. They haven't been directly denied by Snowden's team but he did release a statement.
It's stinks to high heaven! Greenwald is a villain in this...at the least he's a smarmy bottom feeder journalist who mislead Snowden for his own career gain.
I've been keeping up on the discussion and I guess I'll have to now put myself in the "see both sides" camp as well...
See, I came from a small farming town in the midwest, and I had friends who, while trying to be a 'good friend' actually held me back intellectually...their advice sometimes narrowed my horizons...
However, in my life (and I suspect but can't prove that it'll be true for everyone) that the net effect of my friend's advice has been decidedly positive.
See, I also had a friend back home who gave me the "Good Will Hunting" speech...like when Ben Affleck's construction worker tells Damon's character, "If you're still around here in 10 years, fuck you...get out and do something..."
So...yes...some friends are better than others, but we learn to weight their advice accordingly...
FTFY
for real, Steve Jobs is overrated as an 'tech innovator' I'll grant you...I could go on all day about it...
but there's no evidence that Jobs' legacy is as bad as you say...IMHO it is the reverse...
Jobs' wasn't an engineer. He was a marketer. We make a serious mistake when we look at major decisions Steve Jobs made and treat them as some sort of pattern for emulation.
He was hard headed and understood, as many salesman do, that you have to make a personal connection with the user.
He pushed through ideas whether they made sense or not based on his wild-eyed notions 'innovation'. Because American business is so risk-averse and because the competition was so egregiously poorly designed, by the law of averages some of his 'innovations' paid off well.
One that kills me is how, by fiat, Jobs decreed that the iPod 'just work' when you plug it in...
For over a decade, I'd have friends/family ask me for help 'putting music on my iPod'...because due to Jobs' wild-eyed 'user centered design' decree, the iPod would, when connected, automatically open itunes and start downloading your entire .mp3 library to the ipod, no matter how much space the ipod had or how big your music folder was...
It would start seemingly at a random place and go alphabetically until it was full.
By default, the iPod preferences in iTunes did NOT allow for the user to add or delete files to their iPod.
Non-tech friends/family would assume this is just how it worked...maybe make playlists to add songs.
It was ridiculous.
There are other examples.
Jobs' weilded user-centered design principles like barbarian...by sheer lack of options from competitors it was, comparitively 'more usable'...
right?
OP must be trolling but at the same time, I can kind of envision a kind of person who would make a comment like his and mean it genuinely.
for those without good friends: this is what friends do! it is kind of defining characteristic...people that care enough about you to do something you might not like, risking angering you, because they feel so strongly you are making a mistake
it saddens me that such a comment as that from OP - 'butt out!' could plausibly be non-trollface. I have met people in my professional life who I can imagine possibly being so disconnected as to think this way...and in a way it hurts our whole industry.
being disconnect from others causes us to make abstract and difficult to use interfaces and methods....further enforcing the tech/non-tech divide and wasting huge ammounts of resources
right...I thought e-meters only measured skin conductivity
either way, I don't understand why this fact isn't reported in the discussion more...
the existence of the e-meter proves that polygraphs dont work and people can train themselves to control the phsysiological variables
you'd think critics of the polygraph would bring it up more often
Original post should read: "Syrian Electronic Army"
also: Syrian Electronic Army = Illuminati/Aristocracy contractors...
i deserved my downmods b/c my post was confusing as hell...no wonder the responses made no sense
the good guys in Syria are, obviously, the groups trying to enact democratic reforms in the Syrian government
by your logic, all someone has to do to discredit any democracy revolution is get one Agent Provaceteur to pose as an 'Al-Qaeda operative' and pretend to be on teh side of the rebels, then blog about it and have some of your tech's put his stuff on a known 'Al-Qaeda' website
just because some random group says they oppose Assad and are 'Al-Qaeda' doesn't prove me wrong or you right one bit.
it's obvious that the many pro-DEMOCRACY rebels in Syria are the 'good guys'
heh...that reminds me of the money drop scene in The Big Lebowski...
seriously, what the fsk do you mean "we"..."we" as in the United States?
Americans want the world to be free.
Now, American **companies**
That's different...and in our global economy, national distinctions and becoming less salient.
Unscruplous American companies want shia and sunni to fight indefinitely...'divide and conquer' is a strategy in colonialism and marketing.
American **people** are different from companies that are based in the country.
so....let me get this straight...you claim that...
The US is trying to oust Assad.
Ok I can agree with that...
The US doesn't care or is actively encouraging 'Al-Queda' to become the new 'leader'?
It really makes no sense. "The US" is Obama's foreign policy...what our government does. You cannot provide one shred of evidence, logically or by links to quotations, that "the US wants Al Qaeda in"
Take any policy of the Obama State dept towards the Arab spring. In all cases 'the US' supported the side demanding democracy (to the point it could publicly, without discrediting the rebels as having foreign funding)...
You need to read up on the Arab Spring. While your at it, refresh yourself on Iranian history from pre-WWI to present. Note when Iran released the US hostages in 1980.
Free Syrian Army = Illuminati/Aristocracy contractors
Probably eastern european, just by odds...but I wouldn't be surprised if it was an American company...
Hell it could be the same company that gets all the AC bots here on /.
Democracy in Syria would significantly harm some old and relied-upon revenue streams for rich white people (oil from Iran to England).
Our governments have been installing figurehead assholes in that region for centuries and Assad is no different.
These attacks are to provoke conflict in the region to overwhelm the 'Arab Spring'-type democracy movement that was happening in Syria.
The global elites don't want Syria to become like Lybia....doing these 'hacking' attacks is an easy way for them to prop-up the 'bad guys' in Syria without doing anything to provoke US/UN intervention.
By doing this stuff they keep the status quo...which is a victory for them, given that Syrians were about to take back their democracy.
Roger Ailes tried but the patent was rejected but there was too much prior art....
Really if anything "the West" should be credited with inventing modern journalism.
First Amendment to the Constitution was the first of its kind. No other citizens had ever had that level of official legal protection in history.
France gave us the idea of the press as the '4th Estate'...in a broad sense being an independent check on government.
England contributed mostly by abusing the press for colonialism purposes and using sex to sell tabloids...setting the stage for the 1st Amendment.
Considering the circumstances...I doubt anyone reading this could have achieved more.
I know I'm 'feeding the trolls' but I'm asking for alternatives...I think the Obama bashing here on /. is reductive at best and done by chatbots at worst...either way it's tearing down the level of discussion.
Respond with **what you would have done differently as President**
Remember: You start in 2008 needing GOP votes to pass health care, and in 2010 the House Speaker says they oppose *anything* you do regardless of policy in order to get you voted out.
That's where you start with your scenario.
You say 'Obama is horrible' or 'Obama is as bad as Bush' then **prove it by offering a realistic alternative** to actual policy choices. What should he have done?
Also, you have to describe how you get the **entire intelligence community** to go with whatever changes you are making (ex: "man, if I was president I would have cancelled all the NSA programs and made them public on day one")...in the middle of TWO WARS. Note that the President can't just by fiat declassify all government secrets...he has to go through procedure.
So start there...if you aren't trolling I'll respond...you must address at least the issues I laid out in your response.
If you can't muster an actual viable response to this challenge then you prove yourself to be pure tollface trash...stop posting here!
it's hard not to 'feed the trolls' when their comments are first and get modded +5 Insightful
I AGREE! ARGH!
we can shout at each other about things we seem to agree upon, or maybe the answer is in terminology...the words we're using the represent our ideas...
see, I agree with your response here:
heh...it does matter! in theory...practically speaking the world has managed to forrest gump its way to what we have...the capabilities, cheesey and consumer driven though the design may be, are pretty impressive
but theory matters of course...it drives everything...I agree computing theory especially presentation layer stuff is horseshit and further agree that revising the internet languages (or making new ones) based on Bayesian, post-Turing, post-'ai', cybernetic and linguistically grounded computing theory would drastically improve everything about internetworked technology!
What, are you typing from 1996?
Netflix, smartphones, and hell even just a cursory reading of what the NSA can do to spy on us proves you wrong....
About the last part at least!
I agree that X, Y, and Z web coding laguages suck! Also flash sucks!
I'm trained as a network engineer. To me it's all stupid bullshit....like tags they put on clothes at the store to make you but them...
You know how some people keep the tag on their hat or w/e even after they buy it as 'style'?
That's what 90% of software looks like to me....I get where you're coming from...but the internet does pretty much everything now. Hell, you can do live HD TV broadcasts over the internet now.
The code is horseshit, but the hardware is so fast it doesn't matter....that's why it works...I hate it...I probably hate it as much as any human alive...but you're dead wrong about the internet's capabilities...in spite of shittily created coding languages to do it
The WHATWG is an example of a working group that would agree with you. They'r ethe ones who got HTML5 off the ground despite the WC3's best efforts
As an AC said above, "You are Wrong!"
There is *absolutely* no technical reason that internetworked computers *must* use different mechanisms at the presentation layer. Absolutely no logical reason to have the standards be different for any reason.
In practice, due to economics or usability concerns, browser makers make their browsers to operate in ways to accomplish non-computing goals....branding.
Just because M$ tries to format lock users into M$ everything...even in their browser design...just because they are that evil doesn't mean that your premise is by default the logical conclusion.
The internet is what **we** make it! Accept that fact.
Yep. It's a small post-industrial midwestern town, but its electric meter system is WiFi based: http://www.cityofanderson.com/wifi.aspx
Don't expect any technical details in the link, but essentially every household utility meter is WiFi enabled and networked to send the data to a central server downtown.
The network is slow, obviously, but it works for email and youtube better than dial up. Faster with a better signal but still ADSL speeds.
You have limited infoprocessing resources.
Yes. Everyone agrees with this statement. Don't need 'cognitive science' to tell you that...
You spend some on a conversation, its less for driving.
Wrong. You're assuming being a fully 'safe' drive requires 100% of our brain's resources.
There is a finite ammount of attention and concentration needed to safely operate a vehicle. The rest is up to you...there's no other way it could be.
Your problem, and every 'texting while driving' Nazi is you make illogical and imprecise distinctions among **ALL** kinds of distractions...assigning weight to one over the other with absolutely no evidence for it.
ex: eating while driving
for some, 'eating while driving' means snagging a quick handful of trail mix at a stoplight....others, they've got their McD's burger box open with fries in one side, driving with the knee while they open a packet of ketchup so they can dip their fries
another ex:
Use of technology. Pushing buttons on a car stereo remote vs touching an iphone touchscreen. What's the difference??? One is to send a text, or type a name into a map, the other is to control the stereo.
In order to be logical, these bans have to cover **any** distraction...eating, applying makeup, reading newspaper (yes I've seen it got pics of the dude to prove it, was in chicago on the loop), texting, using GPS, reading a paper map, lighting a cigarette, arguing with a passenger....
These 'driver safety' laws won't have any effect until they are worded to allow for the complexity of human behavior.
In Oregon, the law is that you must be able to put two hands on the wheel at any time. That's step in the right direction IMHO
I remember the Diamond Rio now, I probably saw it in Wired or Time or w/e, but I didn't know all this time about the RIAA court case!
RIAA v Diamond is an important decision....definitely would include it in every contemporary history class...what would the iPhone look like today if the RIAA had lost?
With no way to send additional supplies
New supplies, and new colonists, would arrive every 2 years.
That's how their argument is circular.
They say how, theoretically, the **first** Mars One can get out, 'media'...which sounds, theoretically, plausible....for **one** launch.
Then, on the feasibility front, Mars One lists off a big erector set list of equipment....that again, could **theorectically** be plausible.
But they don't say how the **other** launches will be paid for...their first method is out: no one is going to watch a tractor being sent to Mars.
Are you saying that the owner outright of a newspaper doesn't have the ability to affect its content?
Or are you saying that all changes in newpaper leadership always lead to **more** bias?
it has to be one or the other for your argument to be consistent...and neither of those options are valid
ownership matters...even if they 'keep the same editorial staff' or w/e...it matters
will the paper have bias? yes...but all papers have **some** bias...see, the difference is, some view it as their **job** as journalists to eject or minimize bias, other news orgs do not put objectivity as a high priority
Bezos will IMHO make the paper less biased than it is now...an improvement. For the reasons I stated.