Actually, English is quite a good analogy for Microsoft Windows/Office. It has a lot more words (functionality) than French, which it has got from embracing and extending from many other languages.
The difference is, Microsoft's desktop monopoly is heading towards irrelevance. Whereas English is still on the path towards monopoly.
Some might think Chinese might reverse the monopolisation of English. But the Chinese haven't been able to standardise on a single language even in their own country. Fragmentation problem.
To get a government job in Spain, all you need to do is pass an exam and get lucky. Your experience on the field doesn't even matter.
Spain's unemployment rate is 26%. Any employer can thus afford to be picky about who they recruit.
You say it's just a case of passing an exam and "getting lucky", but why would they pick randomly when they don't have to. Makes no sense. Seems more likely that you have a dubious opinion.
Here government workers are the type of guys that can nail an exam, but aren't able to do the job
Are you perhaps lacking in the qualifications needed for employment?
Have you considered that there are no overarching rules. That the washing machine market is different from the soda market. That the automobile market is different from the computer software market.
There are no general rules to be learned from what happened in the desktop market. There is no inevitability of an entrenched monopolist. And there are no general rules to be learned from the mobile market - which has already been through several points of seeming stability before being overturned with something different.
the mobile Linux community (well really only Google) did what the desktop Linux community has always failed to do: Build an overall objectively better user experience.
And the "really only Google" bit is why. Linux as created by "the Linux Community" has never been a big success in any user facing application. But various products, with user interfaces built by companies have.
It seems that there are fundamental reasons why FOSS communities are really bad at UIs.
You keep saying that, and it's not true. Each phone needs it's own build, and you can only use a build if someone's created it. That either takes time, or it doesn't happen at all, depending on the Android phone.
I don't see how that's a problem at all, it certainly isn't a disadvantage over iOS as a platform.
You can lead a horse to water but you can make it drink.
That rather depends on what "that" you are talking about. There wasn't an ad hominem in your last comment, and I didn't say there was. Indeed I acknowledged that you'd moved beyond that, such that it would be possible to continue a real debate. So I have no way of knowing what "that" you refer to.
"You tried an example of homeopathy, and were shot down." That's not true. You simply ignored it, mumbling some nonsense about "ad hominem" instead. Presumably because you can't face reality.
Ah yes, I remember. I was writing the shooting down of that argument. Then I read your last line ad-hominem "Do you see now how incredibly stupid your idiotic advice looks to everyone with an IQ above 70?" And I thought, what's the point?
If it your objective is to convince your correspondent that it's not worth completing posts to someone who isn't arguing intelligently, then you've succeeded.
I'm still right. You can't know what's in my head, so your assertion to the contrary is irrational. Your implication that I used the phrase ad hominem incorrectly is wrong. Want me to quote an example of you doing it? Do you really not know?
You can't handle the actual issue here, which you're apparently incapable of defending: "It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts".
The actual problem here is that you were littering your posts with ad-hominem arguments. Now you've at least paused on that failed tactic, we can continue.
You tried an example of homeopathy, and were shot down. So you then ignored that and tried religion instead. On the basis that the religious think their beliefs are outside of science. Your assumption being that the "domain experts" there are the anti-science believers.
And Ad Hominem continues to be exactly what I think it is. Nothing in your link contradicts it. It never will, as the definition isn't subject to change.
You also continue to be wrong on anthropogenic global warming. Ad hominem will never make you right on that.
Try framing an argument without ad-hominem and you will get an interesting discussion. As it is, your lack of debating skill doesn't help you.
As opposed to Apple who forbid it appearing at all and attempt to take without obeying the license before they decided, since they can't just demand that they can void the license because they don't want to agree to it, to block all FOSS code from their store.
Apple absolutely do not ban FOSS software on the App Store. And indeed there are plenty of FOSS projects on the Apple App Store. It's the restriction of the GPL that appears to stop some developers putting some FOSS on there, not Apple's license, terms or conditions.
They determined that largely, the behavior that they saw in 30 days was a good enough picture of someone's actual driving habits (i.e., it's exceedingly difficult to represent yourself as an amazing driver if you're not).
Whether or not you are a former employee, they didn't determine that at all. It doesn't make sense.
They might have determined that amongst users with the device installed, permanently, the first month's driving was similar to all the following month's driving. What the can't determine is if that is still true if they take the device out after a month. Because they have no way of knowing.
See, you seem to think it means "name calling" or "personal insult" It does not.
I "seem to think"? I'm afraid that's yet another thing you are wrong about. That's what comes of you making assumptions.
Are all autodidacts morons?
And there you go with the ad hominem again. Yes, again I do know what it means, and I'm not referring to you name calling. If you don't realise that's ad hominem, then you are making a comprehension mistake, amongst which the possibilities of you not knowing what ad hominem means.
So you're making your idiotic claim
Ad hominem again. And etc. all the way through your post. You can't win arguments that way. Didn't work when you were at school, doesn't work now. It doesn't even annoy me if that was your goal. It only says something about you, not me.
When you are ready to drop the fallacious arguments, get back to me. But I won't hold my breath.
I know it's 'cool' among the autodidact crowd to use fancy Latin terms (it makes them feel smart and important) but if you don't know what they mean, or you otherwise misuse them, you just look like an idiot to those with an actual education.
It means exactly what I think it does. And I don't know about your education ("fancy latin terms" gives a clue) but I did actually study latin at school.
And there's something rather amusing about someone decrying using "fancy" latin terms, whilst himself using a "fancy" greek one.
Should I accept the consensus position on the divinity of Jesus from the Vatican?
It's not really moving on. It's just another non-scientific example, being compared to a scientific one.
That is, after all, the "rational" thing to do. I'm wrong if I think otherwise.
It's not only not rational, it's illogical. You are making yet another fallacious argument, this one called "Argument by false analogy".
No, but it is true, and bears repeating in the face of your ad-hominem.
Should I accept the consensus position on the efficacy of homeopathy from experts on homeopathy?
The domain-experts on homeopathy are the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy. The scientific consensus on homeopathy is that it has no effect beyond placebo.
"It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts."
Blindly putting faith in someone or some group you believe to be more knowledgeable than you is not rational. Don't be foolish.
There's nothing blind about it. It's irrational for non-experts to form a opinion contradicted by the consensus of domain experts. You are wrong if you think otherwise. You're doubly wrong if you think using words like "blindly" and "don't be foolish" help your case.
If not, your opinion just happens to match consensus. Don't pretend for a second that you came to that conclusion on your own after spending years examining the data. You just read a few blogs and popular articles and decided that this is what smart people are supposed to believe. If JQP is not a climate scientist, there's a good chance she did exactly as you did, and happened to come to a different conclusion.
I don't personally know either of the people involved, and neither do you. But your summary of the similarity of what they did is flawed. It's unlikely Microbox's opinion "just happens to" match the consensus of domain experts. It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts.
Jane Q Public's belief in a few "blogs and popular articles" which contradict the consensus of domain experts on the other hand is not rational. And from previous posts, it's clear that you share the same non-rationality. You both believe what you wish were true, rather than what is most likely to be true.
All we know in fact is that the average user has 88 downloaded apps.
No. That was an average of people using that app discovery app.
Well, here we have a problem. You're making an assumption here, about the average user, and not backing it up with any link or source of your own.
No assumption needed, it's simple mathematical probability extending from the figures in your link. Some users don't bother with downloaded apps. So when you only consider users of a specific app, rather than users in general, you are not considering these users. That means your average is higher than the true average.
I did think there were 12 icons per screen. I'm not sure why...perhaps that was on older phones?
No, the previous screen size had 16 icons per screen. Perhaps you got it from some variety of Android phone?
5 pages that the only way to reduce is by using folders. That is the only way. The app drawer method, regardless of if you think it better or not, gives you an alternative
No. I'm arguing that putting all downloaded apps on the main screen is better than hiding them away. Better than having another step to put add a shortcut to them on the main screen. Better that the additional (power user) alternative is to hide things (in a folder), rather than to show things (on the main screen)
However, since you raise the topic of choice. The answer is that choice can sometimes be a positive thing, and sometimes a negative thing, as discussed in the book "The Paradox of Choice". (There's also an interesting TED talk introduction to the topic, which I recommend.) It's absolutely wrong to assume that more choice is better.
Because that's how Android has worked...for some time now. Having owned a Samsung phone, I know that I don't get pushed the latest updates from Google...I get updates for their modified Android on Samsung's own schedule.
OK, you're referring to the fact that manufacturer tweaked versions aren't available till some months after the Google Nexus version. (And sometimes not at all). You say that makes it non-comparable. I say that's the fundamental problem that makes the Android far worse than iOS for OS updates.
Android CAN'T keep up with iOS for speed of adoption of new versions. That doesn't mean we don't compare them. It's a very valid pro/con which people choosing one or the other platform are likely to consider.
Anyway, I'm not sure why you were trying to argue why iPhones having access to new versions of their operating system was an advantage over android phones, that also have access to new versions of their operating system.
??? Because time matters. You do know that. Just because you prefer Android overall doesn't mean it's a good idea for you to pretend that iOS doesn't have advantages in areas where it does.
This story has to be one of the strangest freedom-zealot / anti-tory circle jerks I've seen in a while. Someone changed the robots.txt on their website so that it didn't include a folder. Maybe it's just me but that doesn't sound like an amazing story. Has there been any reporting so far that they wanted to, or even knew, that the internet archive would delete the content because it retrospectively respects robots.txt?
There's a good chance that they didn't know. But the primary result of robots.txt, that they will have known about, would be to stop some or all of the site appearing on Google. Why would be the justification for that?
Can anyone find a copy of Tony Blair's speech justifying the Iraq war on the Labour website via searching on google?
Of course not. All political parties will only have things that they currently still believe in on their current websites. But that's not the issue. This is about robot.txt and it's result of whitewashing the internet archive. I don't know which of the several Blair speeches on Iraq that you mean, but there are plenty of snapshots of the Labour website from that era, so you should be able to find the one you mean. http://web.archive.org/web/20030615000000*/http://labour.org.uk
Can anyone find the transcript of Gordon Brown calling a voter a bigot (I'd also accept the audio) on the Labour website?..
That wasn't a speech, it was a gaff, recorded by chance, and so of course would never have made it onto a party's website. Just as Tory gaffs understandably never make it onto their web site. You've now made it absolutely clear that YOU are the party political zealot here.
The fact that a manufacturer can remotely shut down your car using GPRS/3G is scary and not something you'd want.
It's rather less scary when you realise that it's actually about disabling recharging. In the worst case scenario you're going to get stuck at a charging station, or at home. Not on the highway.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, English is quite a good analogy for Microsoft Windows/Office. It has a lot more words (functionality) than French, which it has got from embracing and extending from many other languages.
The difference is, Microsoft's desktop monopoly is heading towards irrelevance. Whereas English is still on the path towards monopoly.
Some might think Chinese might reverse the monopolisation of English. But the Chinese haven't been able to standardise on a single language even in their own country. Fragmentation problem.
To get a government job in Spain, all you need to do is pass an exam and get lucky. Your experience on the field doesn't even matter.
Spain's unemployment rate is 26%. Any employer can thus afford to be picky about who they recruit.
You say it's just a case of passing an exam and "getting lucky", but why would they pick randomly when they don't have to. Makes no sense. Seems more likely that you have a dubious opinion.
Here government workers are the type of guys that can nail an exam, but aren't able to do the job
Are you perhaps lacking in the qualifications needed for employment?
I speak from experience when I tell you you're dreaming if you think government has training procedures.
I'm afraid your experience is only valid for your particular corner of the government in the country you happen to be in.
The phone market was very different
Have you considered that there are no overarching rules. That the washing machine market is different from the soda market. That the automobile market is different from the computer software market.
There are no general rules to be learned from what happened in the desktop market. There is no inevitability of an entrenched monopolist. And there are no general rules to be learned from the mobile market - which has already been through several points of seeming stability before being overturned with something different.
the mobile Linux community (well really only Google) did what the desktop Linux community has always failed to do: Build an overall objectively better user experience.
And the "really only Google" bit is why. Linux as created by "the Linux Community" has never been a big success in any user facing application. But various products, with user interfaces built by companies have.
It seems that there are fundamental reasons why FOSS communities are really bad at UIs.
If you want the stock version, you can get that.
You keep saying that, and it's not true. Each phone needs it's own build, and you can only use a build if someone's created it. That either takes time, or it doesn't happen at all, depending on the Android phone.
I don't see how that's a problem at all, it certainly isn't a disadvantage over iOS as a platform.
You can lead a horse to water but you can make it drink.
LOL! How is that "ad hominem"?
That rather depends on what "that" you are talking about. There wasn't an ad hominem in your last comment, and I didn't say there was. Indeed I acknowledged that you'd moved beyond that, such that it would be possible to continue a real debate. So I have no way of knowing what "that" you refer to.
"You tried an example of homeopathy, and were shot down."
That's not true. You simply ignored it, mumbling some nonsense about "ad hominem" instead. Presumably because you can't face reality.
Ah yes, I remember. I was writing the shooting down of that argument. Then I read your last line ad-hominem "Do you see now how incredibly stupid your idiotic advice looks to everyone with an IQ above 70?" And I thought, what's the point?
If it your objective is to convince your correspondent that it's not worth completing posts to someone who isn't arguing intelligently, then you've succeeded.
You're still wrong.
I'm still right. You can't know what's in my head, so your assertion to the contrary is irrational. Your implication that I used the phrase ad hominem incorrectly is wrong. Want me to quote an example of you doing it? Do you really not know?
You can't handle the actual issue here, which you're apparently incapable of defending: "It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts".
The actual problem here is that you were littering your posts with ad-hominem arguments. Now you've at least paused on that failed tactic, we can continue.
You tried an example of homeopathy, and were shot down. So you then ignored that and tried religion instead. On the basis that the religious think their beliefs are outside of science. Your assumption being that the "domain experts" there are the anti-science believers.
"And Ad Hominem continues to be exactly what I think it is"
Only in your imagination.
No, also in the dictionary. And any other reputable reference.
I've not offered any opinion on AGW!
Indeed. So your posts are not only worthless for being all ad-hominem, they're off topic too.
Will it work the other way too? To weed out the tele-sales numbers from the people who's calls you do want to receive?
And Ad Hominem continues to be exactly what I think it is. Nothing in your link contradicts it. It never will, as the definition isn't subject to change.
You also continue to be wrong on anthropogenic global warming. Ad hominem will never make you right on that.
Try framing an argument without ad-hominem and you will get an interesting discussion. As it is, your lack of debating skill doesn't help you.
As opposed to Apple who forbid it appearing at all and attempt to take without obeying the license before they decided, since they can't just demand that they can void the license because they don't want to agree to it, to block all FOSS code from their store.
Apple absolutely do not ban FOSS software on the App Store. And indeed there are plenty of FOSS projects on the Apple App Store. It's the restriction of the GPL that appears to stop some developers putting some FOSS on there, not Apple's license, terms or conditions.
They determined that largely, the behavior that they saw in 30 days was a good enough picture of someone's actual driving habits (i.e., it's exceedingly difficult to represent yourself as an amazing driver if you're not).
Whether or not you are a former employee, they didn't determine that at all. It doesn't make sense.
They might have determined that amongst users with the device installed, permanently, the first month's driving was similar to all the following month's driving. What the can't determine is if that is still true if they take the device out after a month. Because they have no way of knowing.
Nope. You REALLY need to go read up on what that term means. You very obviously don't know.
It continues to mean exactly what I think it does. You seem confused.
On the rest of my post, have you finally puzzled out why your nonsense pronouncement was, er, nonsense? I hope so.
It's awaiting something more than an ad-hominem from you. You've presented nothing else yet.
See, you seem to think it means "name calling" or "personal insult" It does not.
I "seem to think"? I'm afraid that's yet another thing you are wrong about. That's what comes of you making assumptions.
Are all autodidacts morons?
And there you go with the ad hominem again. Yes, again I do know what it means, and I'm not referring to you name calling. If you don't realise that's ad hominem, then you are making a comprehension mistake, amongst which the possibilities of you not knowing what ad hominem means.
So you're making your idiotic claim
Ad hominem again. And etc. all the way through your post. You can't win arguments that way. Didn't work when you were at school, doesn't work now. It doesn't even annoy me if that was your goal. It only says something about you, not me.
When you are ready to drop the fallacious arguments, get back to me. But I won't hold my breath.
I know it's 'cool' among the autodidact crowd to use fancy Latin terms (it makes them feel smart and important) but if you don't know what they mean, or you otherwise misuse them, you just look like an idiot to those with an actual education.
It means exactly what I think it does. And I don't know about your education ("fancy latin terms" gives a clue) but I did actually study latin at school.
And there's something rather amusing about someone decrying using "fancy" latin terms, whilst himself using a "fancy" greek one.
Should I accept the consensus position on the divinity of Jesus from the Vatican?
It's not really moving on. It's just another non-scientific example, being compared to a scientific one.
That is, after all, the "rational" thing to do. I'm wrong if I think otherwise.
It's not only not rational, it's illogical. You are making yet another fallacious argument, this one called "Argument by false analogy".
Saying it again doesn't make it any more true.
No, but it is true, and bears repeating in the face of your ad-hominem.
Should I accept the consensus position on the efficacy of homeopathy from experts on homeopathy?
The domain-experts on homeopathy are the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy. The scientific consensus on homeopathy is that it has no effect beyond placebo.
"It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts."
Blindly putting faith in someone or some group you believe to be more knowledgeable than you is not rational. Don't be foolish.
There's nothing blind about it. It's irrational for non-experts to form a opinion contradicted by the consensus of domain experts. You are wrong if you think otherwise. You're doubly wrong if you think using words like "blindly" and "don't be foolish" help your case.
I'm still trying to process "What this video to learn about how people like you".
Really? I'd worked out what the typo was before I was halfway through the sentence. Why did it take you so long?
If not, your opinion just happens to match consensus. Don't pretend for a second that you came to that conclusion on your own after spending years examining the data. You just read a few blogs and popular articles and decided that this is what smart people are supposed to believe.
If JQP is not a climate scientist, there's a good chance she did exactly as you did, and happened to come to a different conclusion.
I don't personally know either of the people involved, and neither do you. But your summary of the similarity of what they did is flawed. It's unlikely Microbox's opinion "just happens to" match the consensus of domain experts. It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts.
Jane Q Public's belief in a few "blogs and popular articles" which contradict the consensus of domain experts on the other hand is not rational. And from previous posts, it's clear that you share the same non-rationality. You both believe what you wish were true, rather than what is most likely to be true.
All we know in fact is that the average user has 88 downloaded apps.
No. That was an average of people using that app discovery app.
Well, here we have a problem. You're making an assumption here, about the average user, and not backing it up with any link or source of your own.
No assumption needed, it's simple mathematical probability extending from the figures in your link. Some users don't bother with downloaded apps. So when you only consider users of a specific app, rather than users in general, you are not considering these users. That means your average is higher than the true average.
I did think there were 12 icons per screen. I'm not sure why...perhaps that was on older phones?
No, the previous screen size had 16 icons per screen. Perhaps you got it from some variety of Android phone?
5 pages that the only way to reduce is by using folders. That is the only way.
The app drawer method, regardless of if you think it better or not, gives you an alternative
No. I'm arguing that putting all downloaded apps on the main screen is better than hiding them away. Better than having another step to put add a shortcut to them on the main screen. Better that the additional (power user) alternative is to hide things (in a folder), rather than to show things (on the main screen)
However, since you raise the topic of choice. The answer is that choice can sometimes be a positive thing, and sometimes a negative thing, as discussed in the book "The Paradox of Choice". (There's also an interesting TED talk introduction to the topic, which I recommend.) It's absolutely wrong to assume that more choice is better.
Because that's how Android has worked...for some time now. Having owned a Samsung phone, I know that I don't get pushed the latest updates from Google...I get updates for their modified Android on Samsung's own schedule.
OK, you're referring to the fact that manufacturer tweaked versions aren't available till some months after the Google Nexus version. (And sometimes not at all). You say that makes it non-comparable. I say that's the fundamental problem that makes the Android far worse than iOS for OS updates.
Android CAN'T keep up with iOS for speed of adoption of new versions. That doesn't mean we don't compare them. It's a very valid pro/con which people choosing one or the other platform are likely to consider.
Anyway, I'm not sure why you were trying to argue why iPhones having access to new versions of their operating system was an advantage over android phones, that also have access to new versions of their operating system.
??? Because time matters. You do know that. Just because you prefer Android overall doesn't mean it's a good idea for you to pretend that iOS doesn't have advantages in areas where it does.
This story has to be one of the strangest freedom-zealot / anti-tory circle jerks I've seen in a while. Someone changed the robots.txt on their website so that it didn't include a folder. Maybe it's just me but that doesn't sound like an amazing story. Has there been any reporting so far that they wanted to, or even knew, that the internet archive would delete the content because it retrospectively respects robots.txt?
There's a good chance that they didn't know. But the primary result of robots.txt, that they will have known about, would be to stop some or all of the site appearing on Google. Why would be the justification for that?
Can anyone find a copy of Tony Blair's speech justifying the Iraq war on the Labour website via searching on google?
Of course not. All political parties will only have things that they currently still believe in on their current websites. But that's not the issue. This is about robot.txt and it's result of whitewashing the internet archive. I don't know which of the several Blair speeches on Iraq that you mean, but there are plenty of snapshots of the Labour website from that era, so you should be able to find the one you mean.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030615000000*/http://labour.org.uk
Can anyone find the transcript of Gordon Brown calling a voter a bigot (I'd also accept the audio) on the Labour website?..
That wasn't a speech, it was a gaff, recorded by chance, and so of course would never have made it onto a party's website. Just as Tory gaffs understandably never make it onto their web site. You've now made it absolutely clear that YOU are the party political zealot here.
And in many cases recharge with someone else's electricity. Bonus!
The fact that a manufacturer can remotely shut down your car using GPRS/3G is scary and not something you'd want.
It's rather less scary when you realise that it's actually about disabling recharging. In the worst case scenario you're going to get stuck at a charging station, or at home. Not on the highway.