And at the time it was true of the Japanese products. And before that it was the Germans supplying the low-quality junk products. Today it's China, and tomorrow it will be someone else.
Incremental improvements. The Japanese are famous for that, and it paid off handsomely for them.
But I knew it would mean copyright would shift the "wrong" way (in favor of content producers).
Yes, that was my fear as well. Once this is in place, I would expect the media companies and their front organizations to stop bitching about online infringement and to stop suing people. But they won't: that's too big a moneymaker in its own right, and they like being able to make threats and intimidate people. They had also better start show record profits, since all those thousands of billions of dollars in lost sales will now suddenly start appearing in their bank accounts.
FTFY: What you're actually saying is that Spamhaus should be allowed to destroy multiple senders and receiver's email capability without law enforcement intervening.
The thing is, they have no right to do this, and nowhere to GET a right to do this -- and THAT is why law enforcement should be provided with a means to show up at Spamhaus's door and arrest the lot of them.
I never signed up for Spamhaus to be my "Internet Mommy." They're presumptuous abusers of other people's rights. Just as bad as spammers, and for the same reason: direct interference with my email.
The problem with that approach is that the only power that Spamhaus devolves from the ISPs and server operators who use it. They don't directly block anything. They can't, that's not how it works. They're playing a dangerous game: if they make themselves too risky to use, admins will stop using them and whatever "power" they have will disappear.
What the law says will be determined in court. A company telling the law is on their side is really not news.
No kidding. Apple insisted that jailbreaking was against the law until a court slapped them down. Void your warranty, sure... but not illegal. Facebook is playing the same game: they know that some large number of people will take them at (ahem!) "face" value, and that's sufficient.
I have yet to encounter an employer that requires this either personally or through my friends.
I had one friend who's employer asked if he had a FB page. He said he did but that it was marked private. They did not pursue it further.
-nB
That was probably good enough for them: they just wanted to know if your friend was likely to be writing about them in public.
Can people cite specific examples of job requirements to have a FB account?
As former Law Enforcement I can tell you that FB is a great way to be fired or placed on Administrative Leave. Also, it can cause you to be declined for promotions or with other departments
I don't think that was the question. I think he wants to know of people that have been denied a position for not having a Facebook account. I can understand that if you do have one (or any public Internet presence, for that matter) and you post negative information (accurate or otherwise) about your employer, that you may find yourself censured.
Seems whacked though. I have the feeling it's about more than the interview process. They probably want to be on your friends list so they can make sure you aren't posting anything negative about them while you're working for them.
Yeah, sleazy. If you don't want your employees posting bad stuff about you, don't treat them badly.
No, hyperbole aside, there's an increasing number of things that one is locked out of if one doesn't choose to do business with FB. Things like contests and sometimes jobs. It's scummy, but there are employers that insist upon having access to view a potential employees FB page, even though it's extremely poor judgment.
Yes. They can ask.
And if that becomes an issue the next time I go job hunting, they'll be able to see my Facebook page. Now, mind you, I've never had a Facebook page, but that doesn't mean a potential employer won't be able to see my Facebook page. Well, a Facebook page with my name and picture on it.
Anyone that can't figure out he needs to set up a fake Facebook account probably isn't worth hiring anyway.
Of course it would have. Google made it very clear that mobile was the direction they were heading, and that Android was released because they needed a platform that would deliver the services they wanted to offer users. There was going to be a mobile OS from Google regardless of what Jobs did or did not do. The economics of the situation dictated that it would be that way. Put it like this: Google is all about eyeballs and advertising, it's been clear for some years now that mobile devices are going to be the big player. There was no way in Hell that Larry Page would allow his ability to reach users be dictated entirely by the likes of Apple or Microsoft. That would be very uncharacteristic.
Android was an entirely predictable move by Google, and I'd be very surprised if Jobs didn't see it coming.
It is very much a tale of dwarfs standing shoulder to shoulder to allow the next generation of dwarfs above them to see farther.
And in certain fields, the occasional transcendental mind comes along and peers through an intellectual telescope to help the other dwarves see even further.
Jobs, however, was categorically not such a mind, and comparing him to the likes of Einstein is disingenuous and irritates the hell out of me.
Would never have happened? You make that sound like a bad thing? If Jobs hadn't convinced Woz to quite HP we would all be using an awesome computer called the WozPak. It would have RISC, SCSI, and the schematics in the box! As far as you know Steve Jobs set back computing by decades.
Yes. I was a big Apple ][ fan at time time: spent years coding industrial applications for it. That's because it was the most open and reliable design on the market, and I could plug in all kinds of interface peripherals (analog and digital I/O, real-time clock, all kinds of useful things.) Custom built a few for my customers too. Then Jobs went off track on this "computing as an appliance" business. Out came the Mac, no slots... and no work. So I switched my efforts to the IBM Personal Computer, and never looked back.
The creation of apple and the hardware they sold would never have happened without BOTH steves being involved.
Sure, but face facts. Woz invented the Apple I and the Apple ][. Matter of fact, the Apple ][ was a brilliant piece of design work, especially from someone as young as he was at the time... pretty damn close to genius level. Yet Jobs gets credit as the "inventor." His contribution was salesmanship, and giving him credit as an inventor does a disservice to Steve Wozniak.
I'm an engineer by trade and this is one of the things which confounds me about programmers ("software engineers").
That's a gross oversimplification. Like all engineering, software is a big pasture. Those who are good at the back-end stuff are generally not the ones who should be coding the GUI. I don't know who you've been talking to that is confounding you, but it's probably not someone like me. To each their own.
Furthermore, the complaints being lodged against Steve Jobs here have nothing whatsoever with ease-of-use. They have to do with his corporate policies, which is an entirely different matter than the fact that his company came up with some nice user interfaces and a convenient place to sell software. They are also issues that affect those laypeople to whom you are referring, even if many of them simply do not realize it. Yet.
I think some people love the whole communal mourning thing. Ie, when a family member dies you mourn but you do it only with friends and family. But when a public figure dies then you can rally around a very large community and put out candles and write letters or whatever else they do. Steve Jobs, Michael Jackson, Princes Diana, etc.
It is so beyond the norm that it even goes beyond the idea of installing software on a low profile PC.
It's called "jailbreaking" for a reason.
Why? It's called "owning your property." You don't rent the things, you buy them. Apple got bitchslapped by the courts last year about their stating that "jailbreaking is illegal." It's not.
As for me, I have that slimline HTPC case in my living room: everybody thinks it's a DVD player and I run XBMC on it. Among other things: it's a regular PC so I don't have to settle for what Apple or Google or anyone else wants to let me run.
I bought an ATV and only use Netflix on it. I had XBMC on it for a while, but an upgrade wiped it out...it was getting to be a pain to keep hulu running on it anyways...
No AppleTax for me...and even if there were? It isn't like paying $3 to rent a movie is all that much (especially when it costs me $8 to rent a RedBox because I can never seem to get back to the box in any reasonable amount of time).
Three bucks is ridiculous in this day and age. I've been paying for Netflix's service and it works very well: 8 bucks a month for the past year or so, unlimited streaming. If I had been paying three bucks a pop I'd have exceeded my old cable bill.
I could have a actual time machine that diamonds pour out of any time you press a button, but if I told an Apple fan it had a PC in it they would claim that Apple can do it better - and without citation or logic. So if it seems like some people are angry with Apple and Apple users, it's a well deserved anger. I could go on but this is already too long.
I was going to play Devil's advocate and try to rebut your points for the fun of it, but trying to get inside an Apple fan's head proved too unsettling.
Part of that is because Apple will happily slice prices down to 0%, or even negative margins in order to sell Macs to schools. Get 'em while they're young, eh?
Yes. It works for religion, politics (sometimes) and operating systems.
Actually they can, they can ask you to unlock it first,
Yes. They can ask. And you say "no", let the court order me to do it and then we'll see. But you, Mr. Officer, aren't entitled to that information yet.
And there was another more recent case involving a man accused by a couple of customs agents of viewing child porn at an airport. We was arrested and charged, but the agents closed the lid on the laptop. Apparently he was running TrueCrypt or something similar, and when it came back up it wanted the decryption password. He refused to give it. The judge refused to compel him to provide the password, as it was in his head, and that to do so would be self-incrimination. Now, if the cops manage to decrypt it on their own, or if you happen to leave that password lying about in your "papers and personal effects" that would be fair game.
Slashdot Mirror
And at the time it was true of the Japanese products. And before that it was the Germans supplying the low-quality junk products. Today it's China, and tomorrow it will be someone else.
Incremental improvements. The Japanese are famous for that, and it paid off handsomely for them.
But I knew it would mean copyright would shift the "wrong" way (in favor of content producers).
Yes, that was my fear as well. Once this is in place, I would expect the media companies and their front organizations to stop bitching about online infringement and to stop suing people. But they won't: that's too big a moneymaker in its own right, and they like being able to make threats and intimidate people. They had also better start show record profits, since all those thousands of billions of dollars in lost sales will now suddenly start appearing in their bank accounts.
Right?
FTFY: What you're actually saying is that Spamhaus should be allowed to destroy multiple senders and receiver's email capability without law enforcement intervening.
The thing is, they have no right to do this, and nowhere to GET a right to do this -- and THAT is why law enforcement should be provided with a means to show up at Spamhaus's door and arrest the lot of them.
I never signed up for Spamhaus to be my "Internet Mommy." They're presumptuous abusers of other people's rights. Just as bad as spammers, and for the same reason: direct interference with my email.
The problem with that approach is that the only power that Spamhaus devolves from the ISPs and server operators who use it. They don't directly block anything. They can't, that's not how it works. They're playing a dangerous game: if they make themselves too risky to use, admins will stop using them and whatever "power" they have will disappear.
What the law says will be determined in court. A company telling the law is on their side is really not news.
No kidding. Apple insisted that jailbreaking was against the law until a court slapped them down. Void your warranty, sure ... but not illegal. Facebook is playing the same game: they know that some large number of people will take them at (ahem!) "face" value, and that's sufficient.
Facebook knows everything there is to know about you.
It even knows where you put the keys you lost.
They won't tell you where your keys are- but they sure do know.
What about my missing sock?
Your tagline is very odd ... it says "Have you driven a ... lately?" What does that mean?
I have yet to encounter an employer that requires this either personally or through my friends. I had one friend who's employer asked if he had a FB page. He said he did but that it was marked private. They did not pursue it further. -nB
That was probably good enough for them: they just wanted to know if your friend was likely to be writing about them in public.
Can people cite specific examples of job requirements to have a FB account?
As former Law Enforcement I can tell you that FB is a great way to be fired or placed on Administrative Leave. Also, it can cause you to be declined for promotions or with other departments
I don't think that was the question. I think he wants to know of people that have been denied a position for not having a Facebook account. I can understand that if you do have one (or any public Internet presence, for that matter) and you post negative information (accurate or otherwise) about your employer, that you may find yourself censured.
No, they just don't call you for a 2nd interview.
Seems whacked though. I have the feeling it's about more than the interview process. They probably want to be on your friends list so they can make sure you aren't posting anything negative about them while you're working for them.
Yeah, sleazy. If you don't want your employees posting bad stuff about you, don't treat them badly.
No, hyperbole aside, there's an increasing number of things that one is locked out of if one doesn't choose to do business with FB. Things like contests and sometimes jobs. It's scummy, but there are employers that insist upon having access to view a potential employees FB page, even though it's extremely poor judgment.
Yes. They can ask.
And if that becomes an issue the next time I go job hunting, they'll be able to see my Facebook page. Now, mind you, I've never had a Facebook page, but that doesn't mean a potential employer won't be able to see my Facebook page. Well, a Facebook page with my name and picture on it.
Anyone that can't figure out he needs to set up a fake Facebook account probably isn't worth hiring anyway.
We need a privacy bill of rights. Opt-in, full disclosure, and deterrent-level fines and fees for breaking the rules.
Yes, but in the meantime submit all your phone numbers to The National Do Not Call Registry.
Uh, yes, I really do. Or it easily could exist.
Of course it would have. Google made it very clear that mobile was the direction they were heading, and that Android was released because they needed a platform that would deliver the services they wanted to offer users. There was going to be a mobile OS from Google regardless of what Jobs did or did not do. The economics of the situation dictated that it would be that way. Put it like this: Google is all about eyeballs and advertising, it's been clear for some years now that mobile devices are going to be the big player. There was no way in Hell that Larry Page would allow his ability to reach users be dictated entirely by the likes of Apple or Microsoft. That would be very uncharacteristic.
Android was an entirely predictable move by Google, and I'd be very surprised if Jobs didn't see it coming.
It is very much a tale of dwarfs standing shoulder to shoulder to allow the next generation of dwarfs above them to see farther.
And in certain fields, the occasional transcendental mind comes along and peers through an intellectual telescope to help the other dwarves see even further.
Jobs, however, was categorically not such a mind, and comparing him to the likes of Einstein is disingenuous and irritates the hell out of me.
Would never have happened? You make that sound like a bad thing? If Jobs hadn't convinced Woz to quite HP we would all be using an awesome computer called the WozPak. It would have RISC, SCSI, and the schematics in the box! As far as you know Steve Jobs set back computing by decades.
Yes. I was a big Apple ][ fan at time time: spent years coding industrial applications for it. That's because it was the most open and reliable design on the market, and I could plug in all kinds of interface peripherals (analog and digital I/O, real-time clock, all kinds of useful things.) Custom built a few for my customers too. Then Jobs went off track on this "computing as an appliance" business. Out came the Mac, no slots ... and no work. So I switched my efforts to the IBM Personal Computer, and never looked back.
The creation of apple and the hardware they sold would never have happened without BOTH steves being involved.
Sure, but face facts. Woz invented the Apple I and the Apple ][. Matter of fact, the Apple ][ was a brilliant piece of design work, especially from someone as young as he was at the time ... pretty damn close to genius level. Yet Jobs gets credit as the "inventor." His contribution was salesmanship, and giving him credit as an inventor does a disservice to Steve Wozniak.
Steve was brilliant, but mostly at getting products to market after somebody else developed it and before they took that last step to take it over.
You do realize that you could be describing Bill Gates.
I'm an engineer by trade and this is one of the things which confounds me about programmers ("software engineers").
That's a gross oversimplification. Like all engineering, software is a big pasture. Those who are good at the back-end stuff are generally not the ones who should be coding the GUI. I don't know who you've been talking to that is confounding you, but it's probably not someone like me. To each their own.
Furthermore, the complaints being lodged against Steve Jobs here have nothing whatsoever with ease-of-use. They have to do with his corporate policies, which is an entirely different matter than the fact that his company came up with some nice user interfaces and a convenient place to sell software. They are also issues that affect those laypeople to whom you are referring, even if many of them simply do not realize it. Yet.
I think some people love the whole communal mourning thing. Ie, when a family member dies you mourn but you do it only with friends and family. But when a public figure dies then you can rally around a very large community and put out candles and write letters or whatever else they do. Steve Jobs, Michael Jackson, Princes Diana, etc.
Yeah, but the GP is right: it is creepy.
A hacked AppleTV is like the ultra-geek option.
It is so beyond the norm that it even goes beyond the idea of installing software on a low profile PC.
It's called "jailbreaking" for a reason.
Why? It's called "owning your property." You don't rent the things, you buy them. Apple got bitchslapped by the courts last year about their stating that "jailbreaking is illegal." It's not.
As for me, I have that slimline HTPC case in my living room: everybody thinks it's a DVD player and I run XBMC on it. Among other things: it's a regular PC so I don't have to settle for what Apple or Google or anyone else wants to let me run.
I bought an ATV and only use Netflix on it. I had XBMC on it for a while, but an upgrade wiped it out...it was getting to be a pain to keep hulu running on it anyways...
No AppleTax for me...and even if there were? It isn't like paying $3 to rent a movie is all that much (especially when it costs me $8 to rent a RedBox because I can never seem to get back to the box in any reasonable amount of time).
Three bucks is ridiculous in this day and age. I've been paying for Netflix's service and it works very well: 8 bucks a month for the past year or so, unlimited streaming. If I had been paying three bucks a pop I'd have exceeded my old cable bill.
I could have a actual time machine that diamonds pour out of any time you press a button, but if I told an Apple fan it had a PC in it they would claim that Apple can do it better - and without citation or logic. So if it seems like some people are angry with Apple and Apple users, it's a well deserved anger. I could go on but this is already too long.
I was going to play Devil's advocate and try to rebut your points for the fun of it, but trying to get inside an Apple fan's head proved too unsettling.
Part of that is because Apple will happily slice prices down to 0%, or even negative margins in order to sell Macs to schools. Get 'em while they're young, eh?
Yes. It works for religion, politics (sometimes) and operating systems.
For the love of God, stop spelling it "fanboi." That's just as bad as people saying "M$" and other retarded shit. Get over it.
So is that better or worse than "boxen."
Actually they can, they can ask you to unlock it first,
Yes. They can ask. And you say "no", let the court order me to do it and then we'll see. But you, Mr. Officer, aren't entitled to that information yet.
And there was another more recent case involving a man accused by a couple of customs agents of viewing child porn at an airport. We was arrested and charged, but the agents closed the lid on the laptop. Apparently he was running TrueCrypt or something similar, and when it came back up it wanted the decryption password. He refused to give it. The judge refused to compel him to provide the password, as it was in his head, and that to do so would be self-incrimination. Now, if the cops manage to decrypt it on their own, or if you happen to leave that password lying about in your "papers and personal effects" that would be fair game.
We don't have girlfriends.
Some of us have wives, which is odd because there's supposed to be a "girlfriend" stage before that happens.