I'd have to disagree. We have our own in house IT department... but a small part of our business is providing outsourced IT. And our stuff ridiculously overbuilt and robust.
It's not about robustness in these instances. It's about power and accountability. When you have hugely sensitive information (medical records, credit card details or financial records) you must be in control of your own systems. While downtime sucks, downtime is often better than data compromise in these cases.
A little more than that; it's also supposed to be a decentralized facebook wannabe. The idea is that people can run their own node (I forget what the diaspora term is), and the system as a whole is composed of those interconnected nodes. Because you control your own node, it's impossible for any of your personal information to escape without your explicit permission.
Personally, I think the initiative and work involved in setting up a node (even if they get it to the relatively trivial, it's always going to be harder than just signing up) is going to necessarily impact adoption, and it'll never get off the ground. Unless, of course, you have someone configuring and hosting your node for you, in which case all advantage is lost (you're still placing control of your information in the hands of a third party).
I believe that this is why there is an unwritten law that a lawyer never asks a client if he is guilty, there are some things it's just better not to know.
It's not just that; if a lawyer knows (actually knows, for a fact, not just "is damn sure") that their client is guilty, they cannot represent their client's innocence to the court. They'd have to recuse themselves.
If you were the father of this child, I'd say this could very easily insight terrible actions of violence.
Incite. And so what? Telling a Muslim that Mohammed was not a prophet could very easily incite him to terrible actions of violence. Should that be forbidden? Making that the standard just means that if someone wants to suppress your speech, all they have to do is kill you, and say it was the fault of your nasty, inciting speech. Damn, what a deterrent.
The standard the GP was referring to was actually encouraging violence - as in, a post that said something like "go and kill all the unbelievers", or, as in this case, "I want to kill Mark Bridger". Those statements should be investigated, and if it turns out they're credible as threats of violence, then punishment should be forthcoming. But banning anything that might make people mad? I think you've just violated the entire premise of free speech - if the only things you say don't make people mad, nobody's going to stop you saying them in the first place. It's entirely those forms of speech that make people mad that need protection.
He's playing a variant of the area man constantly mentioning he doesn't own a television tune. He's showing how superior he is for using outdated technology that fills a specific niche better than a modern, general-purpose device. In reality, most people aren't out to tilt in his little idealistic crusade, and just use both.
Not exactly like for like is it? Flip phones have moving parts, and their hinges are pretty fragile. Both the Nexus S and the iPhone are of the modern slab-like construction, with the only real difference being construction material and the dimensions (the Nexus S also has a slight concave surface, which probably helps protect the glass).
I don't know how the Samsung Series 7 goes, but metal isn't always better. Apple makes their iPhones out of aluminium and glass because they're cool, sleek and sexy. My Nexus S is largely plastic, but is far, far more durable than my friends' iPhones. My phone once took a meter-long parabolic flight into tiles (damn dog). It's back came off and the battery popped out, but within 5 seconds it was as good as new. All but one of my iPhoner friends has had the screen replaced at least once from everyday knocks. One of them's gone through three.
I like the nice, cold, heavy feel of an iPhone's premium construction materials as much as anyone, but premium's not always the same as practical.
I mean, more money's never a good thing, but there are other good things too. For me, it's primarily time. A job with flexible working hours, that let's me start and leave an hour early is a good thing (I'm an early riser - I imagine others would prefer starting and finishing later). The ability to telecommute part time. Time off in lieu. Extra holidays.
If I got offered either $250, or a day off, I'd take the day off. My finances aren't so tight that $250 is going to make a significant difference, but my time is tight enough that a day off would ($250 is roughly a day's pay, after tax, for me). Now, if you're talking significant money, that might be different, but that's not exactly like-for-like.
Now on to censorship. Please do not confuse the right to free speech with a mandate that someone provide you a platform or stage for that speech
Sorry, but that's a straw man. If a "platform or stage" (ie: YouTube) is being constrained by law from broadcasting material, then it most definitely a case of free speech, not of an individual demanding they be provided with a channel.
You can argue whether it's justified in this case, and as others have noted, there are legitimate reasons for certain types of speech in certain situations to be restricted. But it most definitely a free speech issue.
We don't eat the entire biomass. Hybridised crops tend to be optimized for eating, so they produce more and larger edible bits - kernels, fruit, etc. That often comes at the cost of the rest of the plant - it's why, if you plant a high-producing fruit tree in your garden, you're supposed to pull off all the developing fruit in the first few years. These plants have been designed to produce lots of fruit, and they will, but if not managed, the energy diverted into fruit production will stunt the tree's growth.
By the W3Cs standards, that's lightning fast. Besides, what happened to HTML5 being a versionless "living standard" (that is, constantly moving target). HTML5.1? That sounds like versions to me, guys!
Pretty sure he's from a country where the standard power sockets include individual switches (like Australia, we're I'm from). Just goes to show you that it's not only the Americans who extrapolate their experiences onto everyone else without informing themselves first.
A 16% increase over 4 years works out to be 4% a year, which just happens to be a little lower than the average inflation rate over the last 4 years (yes, it's lower than that at the moment). Which means, in terms of spending power, its just maintaining the status quo.
As for "merit-based" performance metrics, they don't measure the teacher's performance; they measure the students. What that will mean is that teachers will be competing to teach the students more likely to meet the metrics. The good teachers will get those postitions, and the teachers who don't make the cut will be relegated to the difficult students. So the students who get the worst teachers, will be: * Poor students, who don't have access to tutors or other extra curricular methods of learning * Students with disinterested parents (parental involvements is one the major predictors for academic achievement) * Students in classes of disruptive people And the teachers who teach them will be stuck in a position of no advancement, because their students are consistently out-performed by other demographics.
I'm saying that condemning the Levitical law for having the death penalty is inconsistent unless you likewise condemn the US code of laws. Saying that Christians not executing Levitical law are ignoring bits of their holy book is like saying that US citizens not going out and executing drug traffickers are ignoring their legal code.
You're calling out religious society for having had the death penalty codified in law in the past, and yet not mentioning all the secular societies that have the exact same penalty.
So much this. I've lost count of the number of friends who've dropped their iPhone, and had their smashed screen make the device totally unusable. Meanwhile my Nexus S has been dropped numerous times (and once flung across the room due to over-vigorous gesticulation), and has nothing to show for it but a tiny dent in the case.
Apple seems to more concerned with making their device out of "premium" materials (entirely aluminium and glass) than they are about the practicality of such materials. I remember people sneering at the "cheap plastic" of my phone when I got it, but sometimes, plastic just makes more sense.
Theocracy isn't "rule by God". That would be a Deiocracy. Theocracy is rule by the priests. Appeal to the priests is no more/less likely to intrinsically fail or succeed than that of an appeal to a single ruler.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd have to disagree. We have our own in house IT department... but a small part of our business is providing outsourced IT. And our stuff ridiculously overbuilt and robust.
It's not about robustness in these instances. It's about power and accountability. When you have hugely sensitive information (medical records, credit card details or financial records) you must be in control of your own systems. While downtime sucks, downtime is often better than data compromise in these cases.
A little more than that; it's also supposed to be a decentralized facebook wannabe. The idea is that people can run their own node (I forget what the diaspora term is), and the system as a whole is composed of those interconnected nodes. Because you control your own node, it's impossible for any of your personal information to escape without your explicit permission.
Personally, I think the initiative and work involved in setting up a node (even if they get it to the relatively trivial, it's always going to be harder than just signing up) is going to necessarily impact adoption, and it'll never get off the ground. Unless, of course, you have someone configuring and hosting your node for you, in which case all advantage is lost (you're still placing control of your information in the hands of a third party).
No. I'm saying you think being punished for saying something offensive is compatible with "excellent freedom of expression".
I believe that this is why there is an unwritten law that a lawyer never asks a client if he is guilty, there are some things it's just better not to know.
It's not just that; if a lawyer knows (actually knows, for a fact, not just "is damn sure") that their client is guilty, they cannot represent their client's innocence to the court. They'd have to recuse themselves.
Do I think it should be illegal to go into a mosque and loudly, grossly defame the Islamic belief and culture.
The UK has excellent freedom of expression
Well, now we can see why you think that. Go stick your face back in the muzzle, you seem to like it there.
If you were the father of this child, I'd say this could very easily insight terrible actions of violence.
Incite. And so what? Telling a Muslim that Mohammed was not a prophet could very easily incite him to terrible actions of violence. Should that be forbidden? Making that the standard just means that if someone wants to suppress your speech, all they have to do is kill you, and say it was the fault of your nasty, inciting speech. Damn, what a deterrent.
The standard the GP was referring to was actually encouraging violence - as in, a post that said something like "go and kill all the unbelievers", or, as in this case, "I want to kill Mark Bridger". Those statements should be investigated, and if it turns out they're credible as threats of violence, then punishment should be forthcoming. But banning anything that might make people mad? I think you've just violated the entire premise of free speech - if the only things you say don't make people mad, nobody's going to stop you saying them in the first place. It's entirely those forms of speech that make people mad that need protection.
He's playing a variant of the area man constantly mentioning he doesn't own a television tune. He's showing how superior he is for using outdated technology that fills a specific niche better than a modern, general-purpose device. In reality, most people aren't out to tilt in his little idealistic crusade, and just use both.
So make the nearest button the one you want them to click. Basic UI design.
Not exactly like for like is it? Flip phones have moving parts, and their hinges are pretty fragile. Both the Nexus S and the iPhone are of the modern slab-like construction, with the only real difference being construction material and the dimensions (the Nexus S also has a slight concave surface, which probably helps protect the glass).
I don't know how the Samsung Series 7 goes, but metal isn't always better. Apple makes their iPhones out of aluminium and glass because they're cool, sleek and sexy. My Nexus S is largely plastic, but is far, far more durable than my friends' iPhones. My phone once took a meter-long parabolic flight into tiles (damn dog). It's back came off and the battery popped out, but within 5 seconds it was as good as new. All but one of my iPhoner friends has had the screen replaced at least once from everyday knocks. One of them's gone through three.
I like the nice, cold, heavy feel of an iPhone's premium construction materials as much as anyone, but premium's not always the same as practical.
Not so much.
I mean, more money's never a good thing, but there are other good things too. For me, it's primarily time. A job with flexible working hours, that let's me start and leave an hour early is a good thing (I'm an early riser - I imagine others would prefer starting and finishing later). The ability to telecommute part time. Time off in lieu. Extra holidays.
If I got offered either $250, or a day off, I'd take the day off. My finances aren't so tight that $250 is going to make a significant difference, but my time is tight enough that a day off would ($250 is roughly a day's pay, after tax, for me). Now, if you're talking significant money, that might be different, but that's not exactly like-for-like.
Apple has a walled garden.
Yes.
Android does too.
No
Microsoft has a walled garden, but if you have an x86 tablet, you can plant petunias and begonias
WTF?
Google was dragging their feet on turn-by-turn navigation, so they had to go.
Google wasn't dragging their feet, Apple was refusing to pay for the feature.
The next Bradley Manning? What about the first one?
Now on to censorship. Please do not confuse the right to free speech with a mandate that someone provide you a platform or stage for that speech
Sorry, but that's a straw man. If a "platform or stage" (ie: YouTube) is being constrained by law from broadcasting material, then it most definitely a case of free speech, not of an individual demanding they be provided with a channel.
You can argue whether it's justified in this case, and as others have noted, there are legitimate reasons for certain types of speech in certain situations to be restricted. But it most definitely a free speech issue.
We don't eat the entire biomass. Hybridised crops tend to be optimized for eating, so they produce more and larger edible bits - kernels, fruit, etc. That often comes at the cost of the rest of the plant - it's why, if you plant a high-producing fruit tree in your garden, you're supposed to pull off all the developing fruit in the first few years. These plants have been designed to produce lots of fruit, and they will, but if not managed, the energy diverted into fruit production will stunt the tree's growth.
By the W3Cs standards, that's lightning fast. Besides, what happened to HTML5 being a versionless "living standard" (that is, constantly moving target). HTML5.1? That sounds like versions to me, guys!
Pretty sure he's from a country where the standard power sockets include individual switches (like Australia, we're I'm from). Just goes to show you that it's not only the Americans who extrapolate their experiences onto everyone else without informing themselves first.
The year of linux on the desktop has already come. I look around, and I see plenty of Android phones lying around on peoples' desks.
A 16% increase over 4 years works out to be 4% a year, which just happens to be a little lower than the average inflation rate over the last 4 years (yes, it's lower than that at the moment). Which means, in terms of spending power, its just maintaining the status quo.
As for "merit-based" performance metrics, they don't measure the teacher's performance; they measure the students. What that will mean is that teachers will be competing to teach the students more likely to meet the metrics. The good teachers will get those postitions, and the teachers who don't make the cut will be relegated to the difficult students. So the students who get the worst teachers, will be:
* Poor students, who don't have access to tutors or other extra curricular methods of learning
* Students with disinterested parents (parental involvements is one the major predictors for academic achievement)
* Students in classes of disruptive people
And the teachers who teach them will be stuck in a position of no advancement, because their students are consistently out-performed by other demographics.
If it's required, then it's not "opt-in". That's not an option; that's a compulsion.
I'm saying that condemning the Levitical law for having the death penalty is inconsistent unless you likewise condemn the US code of laws. Saying that Christians not executing Levitical law are ignoring bits of their holy book is like saying that US citizens not going out and executing drug traffickers are ignoring their legal code.
You're calling out religious society for having had the death penalty codified in law in the past, and yet not mentioning all the secular societies that have the exact same penalty.
So much this. I've lost count of the number of friends who've dropped their iPhone, and had their smashed screen make the device totally unusable. Meanwhile my Nexus S has been dropped numerous times (and once flung across the room due to over-vigorous gesticulation), and has nothing to show for it but a tiny dent in the case.
Apple seems to more concerned with making their device out of "premium" materials (entirely aluminium and glass) than they are about the practicality of such materials. I remember people sneering at the "cheap plastic" of my phone when I got it, but sometimes, plastic just makes more sense.
Nevermind that Samsung also sued Apple.
Yes, after Apple had their phones banned in multiple countries after launch.
Nevermind that the iPhone was banned for two years in Korea.
Fanboy tautologies that would be mocked if they were coming from Apple users.
How is what the OP said a tautology? "Tautology" has a specific meaning which the OPs comments don't at all meet.
Why people can't just be happy that there is innovation and competition in the smartphone market...
Because the major "competitor" is trying to ensure that their isn't?
Whether or not it exists, god never responds.
Theocracy isn't "rule by God". That would be a Deiocracy. Theocracy is rule by the priests. Appeal to the priests is no more/less likely to intrinsically fail or succeed than that of an appeal to a single ruler.