because the apple marketers got to him first and convinced him on emotional grounds....or he already has an iPud and is converted before you get there.
of, objectively, such devices enhance how his company performs, great. if it's done out of religious conversion, then it's time for his employees to find new jobs.
'more accessible' is just a new speak term for "hide messy reality from user". this is not more accessible, it's LESS. it builds up a fantasy of expectations not inline with reality that blow up later when the user tries to interface with something/someone outside the apple garden. Of course, he blames that item/person for not playing by the rules he was sold when he bought is iThingy, but reality is NOT the apple garden. apple's assumption that correctly designed devices don't require user-configurability doesn't take into account the unrealistic input/expectations it breeds in its users. even the best engineered and objectively marketed equipment just breaks sometimes and an accessible way to service/fix the issue is needed. such garden mentalities can be ok for short term/extremely limited use items that have low expectations associated with them, but things like phones and computers are trending AWAY from such status.
the fallacy of equating an assumed incomprehensible complexity with unneeded complexity is what's killing growth in technology, especially in the consumer space. By all means, offer an easy to use interface for simple functions, but oversimplifying complex operations does nothing for the user when the designer's assumptions about said complexities fail the user. not only is the user left without what he needs, but he has no way of learning how to get it, and anyone he might ask for help is denied access to what they need. this is why apple sells the attitude along with the product.. it pushes the 'blame/pressure' from apple/its users onto everyone else to get into compliance..ie buy an apple. this is good for apple obviously, but bad for technology/society as a whole.
some would argue that no one games anymore, period because modern 'games' are really little more interactive movies designed to create 'wow' moments as backdrops to social communication (audio chat mostly).
yeah except that the c# binaries run like dogs on the user's computer compared with a C equivalent. I avoid.net and java software whenever possible for this reason. if I wanted my workflow to behave like it's on a pentium 75, I'd just use a pentium 75.
historically, the methods used to do that involve plugging the steam release valves (such as personal liberty) until the already inflamed situation explodes, then blaming the people inside the jerry rigged pressure cooker for the explosion. of course, this produces a much more violent result than what would've occurred had the relevant authority been honorable, but it builds a nice boogeyman for that authority to justify 'crackdowns' which usually do little more than make people angrier. at the big picture level, I'm more a fan of preempting the situations that are factors in violence (eg rights abrogation/systemic political failure) and letting individuals sort out their own disagreements in their own way after that. it doesn't completely prevent violence, but again, some violence is inevitable. simply repressing this in a childlike attempt to build a utopia builds that pressure cooker.
in the case of this article and post, tv violence acts as an example of such a release valve. today's life is quite top heavy with all kinds of artificial weights placed on us by bureaucracies that routinely miss the points of the rules they enforce, objective reality, and the way humans tend to interpret it, causing insane difficulties in discourse, and, more recently, even simply earning one's keep. as a result, such releases are necessary more now than ever. ideally the long term goal is to fix this growing problem, but alas, the only 'solutions' coming from politicians are the same old plugs mentioned above.
..for the same reasons some people like the opposite sex while others like the same sex? it's part of human nature. repress it and you only get more of it cropping up elsewhere, usually in unhealthy quantities.
1. in 'secure boot' mode, the option of booting alternative bootloaders is impossible. that's the point after all, to prevent unsigned software from running before the signed os boots up.. ideally, the chain of trust is passed to a known signed kernel which passes control to a known set of system libraries and executables.
2. who in their right mind wants any one entity to have such control? ms will magnanimously sign other bootloaders? where's the guarantee in that? the only way this can be mitigated is if the user can create his own keys and upload them to the hardware. that's not going to happen.
3. no he shouldnt be. this is that 'well I lost control of the kingdom, but thank god I got a few bones thrown my way' stockholm syndrome attitude I just don't get. why give up inherent control over the hardware you buy to some troll who wants to build a bridge you don't need? if this was truly about security, they'd open the system so anyone can create their own keys and root of trust. of course that's not the real reason. its about control over what software runs with what data.
uh yeah.. that little part about the kernel? that's critical.. can't have development on an open source os if the hardware requires a signed kernel to boot.
when 'easy' cripples the functionality curve, it becomes a threat.. in the apple world, final cut pro 7 vs FCX is a good example of this. In MS world, windows vista/7 vs windows 2000/xp is another. win7's explorer is seriously inflexible, but yeah, it works great for the targeted market of drooling morons who just want to collect pictures and videos.
it's nice to develop apps on a platform where you can assume your users have more than half a braincell. do you really want your computing life ruled by wizards and huge buttons and lots of useless whitespace..and lots of extra clicking?
it will if 'those few devices' grows into a dominant share of the market. that will squeeze out alternatives. something like this is best nipped now, not fought later.
it's not a question of stopping.. it's a question of default expectations. if win8-arm becomes dominant it will effectively kill off the open arm device.
there's a difference between selling something as-is and purposely binding/crippling it so that it doesn't compete with and/or creates an artificial market for price fixing of the 'advanced' model (or other models that do things this one could with some tweaking). it's these types of moves that reek of entitlement because they encroach on the rights of consumers, you know, the people whose property the product becomes (or should become) after they pay money for it.
I guarantee you that if the conditions you're advocating for were present in the 1970s and 80s, most of today's tech giants wouldn't exist. open ended computing devices are what help the next generation get on their feet. if it's all locked down for the sake of today, we'll all just end up paying more and getting less for it...and if a company goes under because someone took their hunk of hardware and repurposed it such that profitability drops to zero on that product, then they overvalued what it was they were offering. I'm not sure this locked down service driven future they're all shooting for is in the best interests of a sane society.
is this even a problem? being female does not inherently make you valuable to a programming project any more than does being male. this makes me think most of this wrangling is more about insecure males involved in OSS wanting to play the white knight. we don't need more females and we don't need more males. we need more good programmers!
the problem with the term 'professionalism' is that it implies objectivity, but is really about conforming to social rules that shield people's feelings from reality. naturally, the most tech proficient people are often the ones most comfortable with objective viewpoints because being good with technology requires them, but these viewpoints can and do upset people (many of your so called 'professionals') who can't handle it or are just not used to it. take a really good programmer and throw him into the typical corporate environment.. what happens? he's ejected. we are inclined to take the populist position and blame him for his lack of $some_social_trait, but, (and this is critical) if he was correct in the position/action that got him ejected, it is really the intolerance/social/emotional weakness of those around him that caused the eviction. the problem is that we only allow ourselves to reward the 'professionals' when they take action, even if it was wrong because the majority of humans value feelings over the facts.
..and those gender roles are defined by our biology, which has a multibillion year history (if you go back to the beginnings of bi-gender species). some would argue that our current attempts at suppressing these traits is making both genders miserable, both in work/play and in relationships (any kind really, not just sex).
are you sure about the media? these days I can flip on the tv and within 5 minutes see some commercial or sitcom stereotyping the shit out of a male during the requisite two minutes hate (err excuse me I mean 'girl power moment'), usually done by a female (or a group of females). in other cases, any time there's a traditional positive male role to play (a leader, a gunslinger, a martial artist, a cop) the show goes way out of its way to make sure that role is played by a woman, or that the men in these roles are under the submissive control of a woman who then proceeds to ridicule them for drama and/or comedic value at every opportunity...of course negative male stereotypes are amplified at the same time, depicting men as serial killers, rapists, pedophiles, or other generic undesirables, even when real-life statistics suggests a different picture. other examples include commercials with little boys playing with girls toys and fathers treated like children and/or idiots by their wives in front of their children. the only time women are depicted negatively in this way is when there's a male pulling the strings somewhere that can be blamed. it's like the directors are playing leaf-frog-feminism on their way to doormat 'heaven'. this crap started in the 80s, then got into high gear in the early 90s.. in the last 10 years its' gone into an overdriven double think fantasy no one's allowed to question.
I see lots of 'flex' given to women in business settings, but men are still expected to do the dog-work like they always were, except now it's not ok for them to expect some default-respect for this that goes along with this default expectation. on top of that, they are 'encouraged' to 'help' women out by passing off the credit whenever it's politically advantageous, usually by other men (talk about stockholm syndrome)! this is in part due to old chivalrist attitudes that have been coopted by feminism to give women the upper hand (a "victory for women").
if you want an egalitarian society, you need judgment (something else politically correct types can't handle) of relevant attributes to win out over emotional wrangling. activists need to quit making it about gender, race, or other irrelevancies (unless of course such attributes ARE relevant, which is yet another taboo subject atm). as long as they trot those attributes out, front and center, they're helping them stay in peoples's minds, reenforcing their use as the primary differentiators, rational or not..
I find it funny/sad/sickingly familiar that the most ardent feminists are often the ones that have no problem pushing society to treat men exactly the same way they demand they not be treated, while claiming they're all about 'equality' and 'fairness'. Besides outright misandry, this can take the form of suggesting they are 'pro-male' as long as they get to redefine masculinity as they choose (this redefinition attempt plays out in the media every day). this style of manipulation is an age-old game that less capable men have played throughout history to get their way in leadership and power, as the truly capable need not stoop to this. preaching the high road while taking the underpass is nothing new for such people, male or female, but the ubiquity of this hypocritical attitude in feminist women nowadays does make me wonder if men do have a one up on women in at least one statistical area: integrity.
you should be blaming authority, not the actions of individuals. authority is the reactionary one here, and only it has the power to set the stage.. you can't retain your freedoms by prefixing every action with a potential threat analysis.
Slashdot Mirror
because the apple marketers got to him first and convinced him on emotional grounds....or he already has an iPud and is converted before you get there.
of, objectively, such devices enhance how his company performs, great. if it's done out of religious conversion, then it's time for his employees to find new jobs.
keeping your website compatible with safari != supporting apple devices within an IT infrastructure.
'more accessible' is just a new speak term for "hide messy reality from user". this is not more accessible, it's LESS. it builds up a fantasy of expectations not inline with reality that blow up later when the user tries to interface with something/someone outside the apple garden. Of course, he blames that item/person for not playing by the rules he was sold when he bought is iThingy, but reality is NOT the apple garden. apple's assumption that correctly designed devices don't require user-configurability doesn't take into account the unrealistic input/expectations it breeds in its users. even the best engineered and objectively marketed equipment just breaks sometimes and an accessible way to service/fix the issue is needed. such garden mentalities can be ok for short term/extremely limited use items that have low expectations associated with them, but things like phones and computers are trending AWAY from such status.
the fallacy of equating an assumed incomprehensible complexity with unneeded complexity is what's killing growth in technology, especially in the consumer space. By all means, offer an easy to use interface for simple functions, but oversimplifying complex operations does nothing for the user when the designer's assumptions about said complexities fail the user. not only is the user left without what he needs, but he has no way of learning how to get it, and anyone he might ask for help is denied access to what they need. this is why apple sells the attitude along with the product.. it pushes the 'blame/pressure' from apple/its users onto everyone else to get into compliance..ie buy an apple. this is good for apple obviously, but bad for technology/society as a whole.
some would argue that no one games anymore, period because modern 'games' are really little more interactive movies designed to create 'wow' moments as backdrops to social communication (audio chat mostly).
yeah except that the c# binaries run like dogs on the user's computer compared with a C equivalent. I avoid .net and java software whenever possible for this reason. if I wanted my workflow to behave like it's on a pentium 75, I'd just use a pentium 75.
historically, the methods used to do that involve plugging the steam release valves (such as personal liberty) until the already inflamed situation explodes, then blaming the people inside the jerry rigged pressure cooker for the explosion. of course, this produces a much more violent result than what would've occurred had the relevant authority been honorable, but it builds a nice boogeyman for that authority to justify 'crackdowns' which usually do little more than make people angrier. at the big picture level, I'm more a fan of preempting the situations that are factors in violence (eg rights abrogation/systemic political failure) and letting individuals sort out their own disagreements in their own way after that. it doesn't completely prevent violence, but again, some violence is inevitable. simply repressing this in a childlike attempt to build a utopia builds that pressure cooker.
in the case of this article and post, tv violence acts as an example of such a release valve. today's life is quite top heavy with all kinds of artificial weights placed on us by bureaucracies that routinely miss the points of the rules they enforce, objective reality, and the way humans tend to interpret it, causing insane difficulties in discourse, and, more recently, even simply earning one's keep. as a result, such releases are necessary more now than ever. ideally the long term goal is to fix this growing problem, but alas, the only 'solutions' coming from politicians are the same old plugs mentioned above.
..for the same reasons some people like the opposite sex while others like the same sex? it's part of human nature. repress it and you only get more of it cropping up elsewhere, usually in unhealthy quantities.
many of the drivers are closed. this makes development a pain for cyanogen.
well maybe we shouldn't be focused on creating things that depend on false scarcity. economies like that only exist in ivory towers.
or they could charge sane prices and mitigate piracy instead of demanding the government bail them out.
your mentality would do little than build a police state.
1. in 'secure boot' mode, the option of booting alternative bootloaders is impossible. that's the point after all, to prevent unsigned software from running before the signed os boots up.. ideally, the chain of trust is passed to a known signed kernel which passes control to a known set of system libraries and executables.
2. who in their right mind wants any one entity to have such control? ms will magnanimously sign other bootloaders? where's the guarantee in that? the only way this can be mitigated is if the user can create his own keys and upload them to the hardware. that's not going to happen.
3. no he shouldnt be. this is that 'well I lost control of the kingdom, but thank god I got a few bones thrown my way' stockholm syndrome attitude I just don't get. why give up inherent control over the hardware you buy to some troll who wants to build a bridge you don't need? if this was truly about security, they'd open the system so anyone can create their own keys and root of trust. of course that's not the real reason. its about control over what software runs with what data.
uh yeah.. that little part about the kernel? that's critical.. can't have development on an open source os if the hardware requires a signed kernel to boot.
way to completely ignore the implied issues with such a situation..
when 'easy' cripples the functionality curve, it becomes a threat.. in the apple world, final cut pro 7 vs FCX is a good example of this. In MS world, windows vista/7 vs windows 2000/xp is another. win7's explorer is seriously inflexible, but yeah, it works great for the targeted market of drooling morons who just want to collect pictures and videos.
it's nice to develop apps on a platform where you can assume your users have more than half a braincell. do you really want your computing life ruled by wizards and huge buttons and lots of useless whitespace..and lots of extra clicking?
it will if 'those few devices' grows into a dominant share of the market. that will squeeze out alternatives. something like this is best nipped now, not fought later.
while I agree with your assessment, just because something 'is' doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't change.
it's not a question of stopping.. it's a question of default expectations. if win8-arm becomes dominant it will effectively kill off the open arm device.
there's a difference between selling something as-is and purposely binding/crippling it so that it doesn't compete with and/or creates an artificial market for price fixing of the 'advanced' model (or other models that do things this one could with some tweaking). it's these types of moves that reek of entitlement because they encroach on the rights of consumers, you know, the people whose property the product becomes (or should become) after they pay money for it.
I guarantee you that if the conditions you're advocating for were present in the 1970s and 80s, most of today's tech giants wouldn't exist. open ended computing devices are what help the next generation get on their feet. if it's all locked down for the sake of today, we'll all just end up paying more and getting less for it. ..and if a company goes under because someone took their hunk of hardware and repurposed it such that profitability drops to zero on that product, then they overvalued what it was they were offering. I'm not sure this locked down service driven future they're all shooting for is in the best interests of a sane society.
and 'everyone's equal' societies require repressive regimes to enforce such unnatural states. churning the pot is fine, but communism is unworkable.
is this even a problem? being female does not inherently make you valuable to a programming project any more than does being male. this makes me think most of this wrangling is more about insecure males involved in OSS wanting to play the white knight. we don't need more females and we don't need more males. we need more good programmers!
the problem with the term 'professionalism' is that it implies objectivity, but is really about conforming to social rules that shield people's feelings from reality. naturally, the most tech proficient people are often the ones most comfortable with objective viewpoints because being good with technology requires them, but these viewpoints can and do upset people (many of your so called 'professionals') who can't handle it or are just not used to it. take a really good programmer and throw him into the typical corporate environment.. what happens? he's ejected. we are inclined to take the populist position and blame him for his lack of $some_social_trait, but, (and this is critical) if he was correct in the position/action that got him ejected, it is really the intolerance/social/emotional weakness of those around him that caused the eviction. the problem is that we only allow ourselves to reward the 'professionals' when they take action, even if it was wrong because the majority of humans value feelings over the facts.
..or that women are consumers and men are the differentiators/providers?
..and those gender roles are defined by our biology, which has a multibillion year history (if you go back to the beginnings of bi-gender species). some would argue that our current attempts at suppressing these traits is making both genders miserable, both in work/play and in relationships (any kind really, not just sex).
are you sure about the media? these days I can flip on the tv and within 5 minutes see some commercial or sitcom stereotyping the shit out of a male during the requisite two minutes hate (err excuse me I mean 'girl power moment'), usually done by a female (or a group of females). in other cases, any time there's a traditional positive male role to play (a leader, a gunslinger, a martial artist, a cop) the show goes way out of its way to make sure that role is played by a woman, or that the men in these roles are under the submissive control of a woman who then proceeds to ridicule them for drama and/or comedic value at every opportunity. ..of course negative male stereotypes are amplified at the same time, depicting men as serial killers, rapists, pedophiles, or other generic undesirables, even when real-life statistics suggests a different picture. other examples include commercials with little boys playing with girls toys and fathers treated like children and/or idiots by their wives in front of their children. the only time women are depicted negatively in this way is when there's a male pulling the strings somewhere that can be blamed. it's like the directors are playing leaf-frog-feminism on their way to doormat 'heaven'. this crap started in the 80s, then got into high gear in the early 90s.. in the last 10 years its' gone into an overdriven double think fantasy no one's allowed to question.
I see lots of 'flex' given to women in business settings, but men are still expected to do the dog-work like they always were, except now it's not ok for them to expect some default-respect for this that goes along with this default expectation. on top of that, they are 'encouraged' to 'help' women out by passing off the credit whenever it's politically advantageous, usually by other men (talk about stockholm syndrome)! this is in part due to old chivalrist attitudes that have been coopted by feminism to give women the upper hand (a "victory for women").
if you want an egalitarian society, you need judgment (something else politically correct types can't handle) of relevant attributes to win out over emotional wrangling. activists need to quit making it about gender, race, or other irrelevancies (unless of course such attributes ARE relevant, which is yet another taboo subject atm). as long as they trot those attributes out, front and center, they're helping them stay in peoples's minds, reenforcing their use as the primary differentiators, rational or not..
I find it funny/sad/sickingly familiar that the most ardent feminists are often the ones that have no problem pushing society to treat men exactly the same way they demand they not be treated, while claiming they're all about 'equality' and 'fairness'. Besides outright misandry, this can take the form of suggesting they are 'pro-male' as long as they get to redefine masculinity as they choose (this redefinition attempt plays out in the media every day). this style of manipulation is an age-old game that less capable men have played throughout history to get their way in leadership and power, as the truly capable need not stoop to this. preaching the high road while taking the underpass is nothing new for such people, male or female, but the ubiquity of this hypocritical attitude in feminist women nowadays does make me wonder if men do have a one up on women in at least one statistical area: integrity.
you should be blaming authority, not the actions of individuals. authority is the reactionary one here, and only it has the power to set the stage.. you can't retain your freedoms by prefixing every action with a potential threat analysis.