Point some out - make sure you include a fair spectrum of comments. I'm not always positive. Generally that's not a great way to run propaganda.
I, at almost all times, am a realist when it comes to my comments (apart from obvious facetiousness). I'll only ever post things that are true - whether they be positive or negative, and and editorialising of things I have read is noted.
I have positive things to say about Android too - does that make me a Google propagandist?
Amazingly enough, "Apple fans" tend not to claim those things. The'll usually claim that Apple made a particular niche popular - portable music players, all in one computers, tablet computers, online music stores etc. Rarely do they ever claim that Apple "invented" them - because they obviously didn't.
Apple haters, however, will claim that's what Apple fans believe and say, and then "righteously" yell at them for "being wrong".
Yes, it will be exactly like the music industry, who were overcharging for plastic optical discs with one good song and 10 filler tracks, a bargain at $15, until Apple came along and...
oh wait, Apple bad! Apple Evul! Apple enumeeeee! Rarrrr!
Sorry, forgot the slashdot party line for a second.
For someone claiming to be against the sort of trolling and puerile content that you accuse the OP os posting, you certainly don't practice what you preach, do you?
He did actually provide an answer - perhaps not one that you want to hear and thus doesn't count as the "right" answer I guess, so must be trolling, right? It's certainly one of the possible outcomes for the original question.
Bugger white phosphorous - if you're going to go for that then use something like nickel tetracabonyl or dimethyl mercury. You know once the thieves had been hit once with that the problem would soon solve itself.
Toxic enough for them to have time to put their affairs in order, but not too toxic that you have to deal with the dead body on your own property.
The article suggests that in a 3T machine it could move at several millimetres per minute, and 3T machines are some of the strongest devices typically installed in hospitals for human use (although there are research machines that have much stronger fields).
It's not going to fly towards the magnet at any rate.
Finally, you also suffer from two dimensional blinkered thinking if you believe that someone with whom you do not share the same opinion automatically becomes your enemy. Who was it who said "I may not agree with what you say but I defend your right to say it"?
and your sig says:
My right to Free Silence countermands your right to Free Speech when I don't care about your fucking opinion.
Which is somewhat contradictory. Your entire comment flies in the face of the former statement at any rate.
Either way, you're accusing me of being hypocritical for pointing out that his lack of maturity and generalisation hurts his argument's credibility - that part of the debate is not in doubt. Immaturity and generalisations always hurt your argument, regardless of topic, so attempts to justify his position are really not relevant.
You then tried to change the argument (and by extension, tried to imply that I was arguing a different topic) by talking about "not recognising that Apple users are pretty much unique in the tech world for lining up [...]". At no point in this argument have I made any such claim one way or the other, and to call me a hypocrite based on that argument is totally inaccurate. I have pointed out that classing *all* Apple users as such is a gross oversimplification and an inaccurate stereotype. Unless you have some documented proof that literally every Apple user "[queues] outside stores for a new piece of electronic jewelry [sic]" then you can't claim that the OP "has a point" at all. His argument is akin to the classic "women can't drive" argument, or the "all Xbox LIVE users are 12 year old kids" argument. It just doesn't hold up. (DISCLAIMER: I am neither a woman nor an Xbox owner). I've never claimed that Apple users *don't* line up outside Apple stores before product launches, and having not specifically mentioned it you're drawing conclusions based on your guesswork about what I believe. That's also not a very good debate method, but it's a good way to force someone into being defensive, since letting it slide runs the risk of you later being able to claim it as true since it was not challenged at the time.
My entire point to the OP was "use of pejorative terms and generalisations is not a sound debating technique". There's no qualifying information or sidetracking argument against that. You're trying to justify his position for whatever reason you've chosen (I'm not going to make an assumption here) with an erroneous and irrelevant argument and I'm not hypocritical for pointing it out just because you say so. It simply does not follow.
Pointing out someone is immature makes me a rabid Apple fanboi?
I think you'll find that's called a non-sequitur.
You'll note that in my subsequent reply I talked about the problem with basing your arguments on sweeping generalisations, especially derogatory ones.
I may well be a "rabid Apple fanboi" or a "fandroid" or even an "M$ Shill", but that has no bearing on pointing out to another commenter the reason that his argument lost all of its credibility. It's just lazy debate technique that draws on inaccurate stereotypes and generalisations. Pointing that out has nothing to do with my personal opinion on the topic, whether I agree with him or not.
You might want to consider that before "correcting" another poster's comments in the future. You risk introducing errors into the proceedings.
I can appreciate that you need an enemy to define yourself by since you seem incapable of defining your own personality (your sig speaks volumes), but you're trying a little too hard to troll here, and not doing it very well. At least you logged in.
It happens all the time in the upper atmosphere due to high energy UV from the sun. The chemistry of the stratosphere is esoteric due to the low pressure and high energies involved.
It doesn't mean that *all* of the water vapour makes it up into the stratosphere to be split by this process, so there's plenty in the lower layers to form clouds.
It's immature and a sweeping generalisation, but you know that.
In the same way that not all Linux users are unwashed, friendless nerds living off hot pockets, rent-free in their parents' basements, not all Apple users are "sheeple".
To use it as your primary argument just smacks of immaturity and a lack of a real argument.
I really don't mind debating the pros and cons of Apple, and wider technology stories as a whole, but I've got to have something to go on. If you're just going to stand there and tell me I have silly hair then I'm just going to find an adult to talk to instead.
Actually yes, in Apple's most recent audit report they mention that they have actually stopped using some suppliers after finding continued violations of their working practices.
Joining the FLA just adds a further layer of third party oversight.
They've been releasing these audits publicly since 2007, but this time (presumably after Steve was out of the picture) they have decided more PR is required in response to all the "suicide iPad factory zomg!" stories.
Like any large company that outsources labour, they are not going to have a spotless record.
The summary, in obvious slashdot fashion, is doing the best it can to make this announcement as negative as possible, but the fact of the matter is the audits themselves being public is not new (although the supplier list is), and that the FLA's role is one of third party auditing and they have access to the whole of Apple's supply chain - that they'll only audit a small percentage each time (of their choosing) is more an indication of their manpower and the vast size of Apple's operations than anything else.
How was Apple's hardware "closed and proprietary"?
They used a custom motherboard/logic board but everything else was standard - PPC chip, standard RAM, standard HD and optical drive, Open Firmware for bootstrap, standard GPU (albeit one that needed a custom ROM to start up with open firmware instead of the more usual BIOS on a PC board).
You are suggesting if Apple were in Microsoft's position they wouldn't have taken any of those steps, but really where would they have gone? Assembling a computer is an exercise in grouping together parts made by other people, and while a totally proprietary system might seem attractive to the company selling it, if it costs more to produce than just building it out of more available parts they they're just shooting themselves in the foot. Perhaps they would, but I don't think it would be quite as easy with a PC compared to a custom built mobile handset.
Can they help us crack Photosystem II? That bastard is frustrating chemists the world over (as far as knowing sort of how it works but not enough of the really key details).
Thy tried that with the "recordable media tax" that applied to things like CD-R and DVD-R media, and to mp3 players in some countries. It was lobbied for by the music industry because "obviously" people buying recordable media would be burning illegally obtained songs so to compensate them for their "obvious" losses they got a cut of all CD-R sales via a price hike.
Of course this didn't stop them suing people anyway...
Slashdot Mirror
Point some out - make sure you include a fair spectrum of comments. I'm not always positive. Generally that's not a great way to run propaganda.
I, at almost all times, am a realist when it comes to my comments (apart from obvious facetiousness). I'll only ever post things that are true - whether they be positive or negative, and and editorialising of things I have read is noted.
I have positive things to say about Android too - does that make me a Google propagandist?
Amazingly enough, "Apple fans" tend not to claim those things. The'll usually claim that Apple made a particular niche popular - portable music players, all in one computers, tablet computers, online music stores etc. Rarely do they ever claim that Apple "invented" them - because they obviously didn't.
Apple haters, however, will claim that's what Apple fans believe and say, and then "righteously" yell at them for "being wrong".
It's getting old.
I know, I wanted to mod him -1 wrong too, but such is life.
Yes, it will be exactly like the music industry, who were overcharging for plastic optical discs with one good song and 10 filler tracks, a bargain at $15, until Apple came along and...
oh wait, Apple bad! Apple Evul! Apple enumeeeee! Rarrrr!
Sorry, forgot the slashdot party line for a second.
And by "Apple propaganda" you mean "editorialising and guesswork by the summary writer"
All Apple has done is named a place and date and mentioned it's to do with education.
The "lack of publishing tools" thing is not from Apple.
But still, easier just to bash them based on things they didn't actually say. Carry on.
My goodness, your tinfoil hat must be *on fire*!
Come on, seriously?
"A known paid shill"?
For real?
Where's the evidence?
You, and many others, may suspect - but that is a long way from being a "known paid shill".
For someone claiming to be against the sort of trolling and puerile content that you accuse the OP os posting, you certainly don't practice what you preach, do you?
He did actually provide an answer - perhaps not one that you want to hear and thus doesn't count as the "right" answer I guess, so must be trolling, right? It's certainly one of the possible outcomes for the original question.
Bugger white phosphorous - if you're going to go for that then use something like nickel tetracabonyl or dimethyl mercury. You know once the thieves had been hit once with that the problem would soon solve itself.
Toxic enough for them to have time to put their affairs in order, but not too toxic that you have to deal with the dead body on your own property.
Good catch - you're right of course. Shame you were too afraid to log in.
I type millimetres per minute and meant to put millimetres per second in the above comment.
The article suggests that in a 3T machine it could move at several millimetres per minute, and 3T machines are some of the strongest devices typically installed in hospitals for human use (although there are research machines that have much stronger fields).
It's not going to fly towards the magnet at any rate.
Copper not going to fly towards the magnet like a ferromagnetic object would.
You say:
Finally, you also suffer from two dimensional blinkered thinking if you believe that someone with whom you do not share the same opinion automatically becomes your enemy. Who was it who said "I may not agree with what you say but I defend your right to say it"?
and your sig says:
My right to Free Silence countermands your right to Free Speech when I don't care about your fucking opinion.
Which is somewhat contradictory. Your entire comment flies in the face of the former statement at any rate.
Either way, you're accusing me of being hypocritical for pointing out that his lack of maturity and generalisation hurts his argument's credibility - that part of the debate is not in doubt. Immaturity and generalisations always hurt your argument, regardless of topic, so attempts to justify his position are really not relevant.
You then tried to change the argument (and by extension, tried to imply that I was arguing a different topic) by talking about "not recognising that Apple users are pretty much unique in the tech world for lining up [...]". At no point in this argument have I made any such claim one way or the other, and to call me a hypocrite based on that argument is totally inaccurate. I have pointed out that classing *all* Apple users as such is a gross oversimplification and an inaccurate stereotype. Unless you have some documented proof that literally every Apple user "[queues] outside stores for a new piece of electronic jewelry [sic]" then you can't claim that the OP "has a point" at all. His argument is akin to the classic "women can't drive" argument, or the "all Xbox LIVE users are 12 year old kids" argument. It just doesn't hold up. (DISCLAIMER: I am neither a woman nor an Xbox owner).
I've never claimed that Apple users *don't* line up outside Apple stores before product launches, and having not specifically mentioned it you're drawing conclusions based on your guesswork about what I believe. That's also not a very good debate method, but it's a good way to force someone into being defensive, since letting it slide runs the risk of you later being able to claim it as true since it was not challenged at the time.
My entire point to the OP was "use of pejorative terms and generalisations is not a sound debating technique". There's no qualifying information or sidetracking argument against that. You're trying to justify his position for whatever reason you've chosen (I'm not going to make an assumption here) with an erroneous and irrelevant argument and I'm not hypocritical for pointing it out just because you say so. It simply does not follow.
Pointing out someone is immature makes me a rabid Apple fanboi?
I think you'll find that's called a non-sequitur.
You'll note that in my subsequent reply I talked about the problem with basing your arguments on sweeping generalisations, especially derogatory ones.
I may well be a "rabid Apple fanboi" or a "fandroid" or even an "M$ Shill", but that has no bearing on pointing out to another commenter the reason that his argument lost all of its credibility. It's just lazy debate technique that draws on inaccurate stereotypes and generalisations. Pointing that out has nothing to do with my personal opinion on the topic, whether I agree with him or not.
You might want to consider that before "correcting" another poster's comments in the future. You risk introducing errors into the proceedings.
I can appreciate that you need an enemy to define yourself by since you seem incapable of defining your own personality (your sig speaks volumes), but you're trying a little too hard to troll here, and not doing it very well. At least you logged in.
Photodissociation.
It happens all the time in the upper atmosphere due to high energy UV from the sun. The chemistry of the stratosphere is esoteric due to the low pressure and high energies involved.
It doesn't mean that *all* of the water vapour makes it up into the stratosphere to be split by this process, so there's plenty in the lower layers to form clouds.
It's immature and a sweeping generalisation, but you know that.
In the same way that not all Linux users are unwashed, friendless nerds living off hot pockets, rent-free in their parents' basements, not all Apple users are "sheeple".
To use it as your primary argument just smacks of immaturity and a lack of a real argument.
I really don't mind debating the pros and cons of Apple, and wider technology stories as a whole, but I've got to have something to go on. If you're just going to stand there and tell me I have silly hair then I'm just going to find an adult to talk to instead.
do the sheeple...
Stopped reading here.
Maturity is an important part of debate.
Actually yes, in Apple's most recent audit report they mention that they have actually stopped using some suppliers after finding continued violations of their working practices.
Joining the FLA just adds a further layer of third party oversight.
They've been releasing these audits publicly since 2007, but this time (presumably after Steve was out of the picture) they have decided more PR is required in response to all the "suicide iPad factory zomg!" stories.
Like any large company that outsources labour, they are not going to have a spotless record.
The summary, in obvious slashdot fashion, is doing the best it can to make this announcement as negative as possible, but the fact of the matter is the audits themselves being public is not new (although the supplier list is), and that the FLA's role is one of third party auditing and they have access to the whole of Apple's supply chain - that they'll only audit a small percentage each time (of their choosing) is more an indication of their manpower and the vast size of Apple's operations than anything else.
How was Apple's hardware "closed and proprietary"?
They used a custom motherboard/logic board but everything else was standard - PPC chip, standard RAM, standard HD and optical drive, Open Firmware for bootstrap, standard GPU (albeit one that needed a custom ROM to start up with open firmware instead of the more usual BIOS on a PC board).
You are suggesting if Apple were in Microsoft's position they wouldn't have taken any of those steps, but really where would they have gone? Assembling a computer is an exercise in grouping together parts made by other people, and while a totally proprietary system might seem attractive to the company selling it, if it costs more to produce than just building it out of more available parts they they're just shooting themselves in the foot. Perhaps they would, but I don't think it would be quite as easy with a PC compared to a custom built mobile handset.
How did this get +5 Informative? It's completely baseless flaming with very little basis in reality.
I guess "it's anti Apple mod up mod up" is really in force.
The actual experiences of people using Apple's (and other projects that they contribute to) open source projects tell a different story.
Really easy, like any other operating system that will run on x86.
The hardware even has a graphical boot selection screen that shows all bootable volumes.
You can triple boot Apple machines with Windows/OS X/Linux with little difficulty - people have been doing it since Boot Camp came out.
Open Firmware is part of the hardware, not part of OS X.
That's like saying that Windows "comes with BIOS".
Can they help us crack Photosystem II? That bastard is frustrating chemists the world over (as far as knowing sort of how it works but not enough of the really key details).
Thy tried that with the "recordable media tax" that applied to things like CD-R and DVD-R media, and to mp3 players in some countries. It was lobbied for by the music industry because "obviously" people buying recordable media would be burning illegally obtained songs so to compensate them for their "obvious" losses they got a cut of all CD-R sales via a price hike.
Of course this didn't stop them suing people anyway...