By suggesting that the only possible conclusion for having the option to do as I see fit with my computers is to have it end up infested with malware, you make (perhaps without realizing it) the argument that what is truly desired is to surrender all control to someone else who will "keep you safe."
I didn't make any suggestion about you or your options. I pointed out the fact that Android has lots of malware on it and iOS does not. And I pointed out the fact that most people care about that, and few care about writing their own programs. All factual. The only thing you have is strawmen: declaring that I said things I didn't.
So what you're saying is that the only reason I want the ability to do as I see fit on my computer... is to install malware? And that what I really want is to give full control of my PC to other people? And that no one should ever have the choice?
No, I'm saying exactly what I said. Nothing more nor less. Those are things YOU are saying.
Malware volume is directly proportional to a systems market share; grow big enough to be noticed by the criminals, and they'll start focusing on breaking your stuff.
The facts don't support your theory. When iOS was the market leader, and Android the minority, it was still Android which was getting virtually all the malware.
there is at least one model for oil/natural gas that could explain its creation based of geological processes rather then biological material breaking down
There is at least one model for child birth that involves avian delivery.
The same one that suffers from lots of malware. People who care about creating their own programs: 0.01%. (and that's being generous.) People who care about not getting malware: 99.99%.
I know perfectly what what the no true Scotsman fallacy is.
It's not a "no true Scotsman" fallacy given that you haven't demonstrated that what you have seen is in fact a Scotsman, or indeed Via Negativa. I'm not maintaining many teachers are doing it wrong. I know of very few teachers teaching that way, and I've never heard of any in America. If you want to provide me with a link that shows "Via Negativa" being used somewhere you saw it, fair enough. Meanwhile nothing you have described goes beyond harsh teaching.
I have my experience, and nothing you have said overrides that. Especially given that you clearly haven't had the experience.
"The harder I work, the luckier I get." -- Samuel Goldwin.
P.S. It's not a video, it's a audio tape recording. It's not that you didn't "watch", it's that didn't even visit the page. And yet you think your empty opinion is worth something.
I think you are confusing "talent" with "confidence." People can be talented without being confident, and I have seen such people shattered by the sort of teaching approach you are proposing.
I've seen people leave at the first opportunity because they didn't have the confidence. I've seen people fail every single day but continue anyway because they have confidence but no talent. I've seen people with talent fail most days, and leave with little confidence but go on to be the best in the world due to what they learned.
Confidence is a part of being exceptional, talent is a part, and so is having realistically high standards for yourself. The problem with mainstream teaching is it coddles confidence, whilst teaching that mediocrity is good enough.
I can only tell you what I have seen, as someone who is in a demanding environment (publish or perish and all that) where it is possible to compare different teaching styles.
So you haven't experienced it, and I have.
The fact that you keep dismissing criticism of Via Negativa, by either assuming that when I refer to people abandoning their dreams I must be talking about myself or by pushing "no true Scotsmen" arguments says a lot about you.
It says that I've heard comments like yours before from people that haven't done via negativa, and from those that weren't talented enough. And that I didn't have a lot of patience with someone who didn't appreciate the power of the pedagogy. If you haven't experienced it, or it wasn't for you, you're not ever going to get it. Once again it's not for everyone. But for those with talent, it's a way to get them to world class performance.
People in tech companies deciding in middle age to have a change in career to something less demanding is not unusual. It's commonplace. Take a look around a tech company - how old are people? Young, right. What happened to the older people? Some went in to management. Some went self-employed. Some changed career.
Nor is people moving on to new companies after a couple of years unusual.
So your observations, such as they are, don't indicate any problem at Apple.
No, I actually studied with the world's top teacher of the subject for 2 years. And he used Via Negativa. It was great for me. But as I said from the start, it's for people with talent. Sorry you either had a bad teacher, or you just didn't match up. Neither is a problem with the pedagogy itself.
Sorry, it's a niche subject field, and so I'm not going to give details, as pieced together with other information it could lead to revealing my identity. I've had online stalking from argumentative people on forums before now.
I've never come across it in a novel. But if you have a reference for that, I'd be interested to know. It might be one I'd like to read.
In the early days of Google having the report a problem feature, I reported a few Street View errors. Checked back a few months later and they were still wrong. So I never bothered after that.
Open Street Maps data has lots of errors, omissions and even areas that are not mapped at all. But unlike Apple Maps it gets a free pass on Slashdot cos it's open, innit.
Due to Daylight Savings time, there wasn't any 2 o'clock AM on that particular day. Nor any of the rest of that hour. For sure they should have handled the UI better for this case, but there is no lack of functionality shown here.
Given that you've clearly picked that up from the internet rather than experienced it yourself, and you're posting as AC, I expect the other items in the list to be equally repeating any old claim you can find on the internet. However much real truth there is in them.
Given that they already have TomTom data there's no particular need to buy the company.
And a company like Apple certainly don't need TomTom's help getting into cars. Cars have long since had interfaces for iPods and iPhones to connect into and be controlled by the in car stereo. If and when Apple wants to do the type of integration you're talking about, they'll offer it to the industry, and they'll have car manufacturers competing to be first.
Which just shows how petty they are. They would rather switch to an inferior mapping system and screw their customers than have a Google logo in the app.
The logo AND Google collecting user tracking information. Don't forget that bit.
The problem with the wait a year suggestion is what happens in that year? Either another year of iPhone Maps not having navigation, or adding navigation to to two different Maps apps, one for this year (The old Google Maps app), and a different one for next year (The new Apple Maps app). Duplicating work for Apple, and giving the users 2 radical changes rather than one.
Apple will be forced to buy someone to help with their maps. It isn't just a case of doing bug fixes.
Assuming by bug fixes you mean data fixes, yes it IS just a matter of doing that. That's how Google Maps went from poor to good in the days before Street View.
Apple get for themselves the tracking data that Google wanted. Heat maps of where users are whilst using maps gives lots of information about where the navigable roads are, one way streets, restricted turns etc.
And whilst Google may have street view cars, Apple already have airplanes capturing the photos and topology for the flyover feature. They don't have to take years to develop is - it's already developed and in use.
Google and Nokia are the only people who have it.
You need to read the copyright notices at the bottom of Google Maps as you scroll around the world. Google like every other player licenses most of their data from others.
There's nothing wrong with it. It's perfectly reasonable for Google to make that their position. It it was perfectly reasonable for Apple to have their position that it was unacceptable. They simply failed to reach a mutually acceptable position. A perfectly normal think to happen in business.
The bins were originally removed in the 1990s following an IRA bomb in a litter bin. And that wasn't the first time they'd been used. Metal litter bins make an explosive far more devastating, by containing the blast, and by contributing shrapnel.
They started to return after the IRA risk was over. But they still weren't around in large numbers by 7/7.
7/7 highlighted the risk of bombers in London, and bins may well have been used by subsequent bombers. So it wasn't an imaginary risk.
However, it's only solid bins that are a risk in that way. I see no reason why there aren't the type of bins that are a suspended hoop with a plastic sack hanging from them. That's what they have in Paris.
Now however having a 1000mw laser when you are lost in the bush would definitely help people find you, however I think that these lasers need to be banned like fireworks as the general population is too stupid to respect their dangers.
That's how the Australian prosecution managed to get someone convicted for possession of child porn for a few comedic Rule 34s of Lisa Simpson. The individual in question had prior convictions for possession of actual child porn, so the jury loathed him.
I don't know the Australian law, but that seems strange. In Britain a jury doesn't know an accused's criminal record (if any) until after they make their verdict. Knowing of an accused's criminal record would be grounds to reject a juror. Which probably makes finding Juries for very famous ex-cons quite difficult.
Slashdot Mirror
If $149 is too much there's still the iPod Shuffle for $49.
(I know, I know, joggers etc like a small light PMP, but its a vanishing market)
People aren't jogging any more?
Of course the iPod Touch is part of the iPod line. And it allows people access to the iOS App Store for much less money than an iPhone.
By suggesting that the only possible conclusion for having the option to do as I see fit with my computers is to have it end up infested with malware, you make (perhaps without realizing it) the argument that what is truly desired is to surrender all control to someone else who will "keep you safe."
I didn't make any suggestion about you or your options. I pointed out the fact that Android has lots of malware on it and iOS does not. And I pointed out the fact that most people care about that, and few care about writing their own programs. All factual. The only thing you have is strawmen: declaring that I said things I didn't.
That's why I made fun of your posts.
Even professional programmers need a way to test programs that they have compiled.
Sure, and they or their companies join the Apple Developer Program to do so. $99 isn't a bar for professionals.
Ah, look, an idiotic reply.
It was a mirror of yours.
So what you're saying is that the only reason I want the ability to do as I see fit on my computer... is to install malware? And that what I really want is to give full control of my PC to other people? And that no one should ever have the choice?
No, I'm saying exactly what I said. Nothing more nor less. Those are things YOU are saying.
Yeah, you're an apologist. Almost authoritarian.
You're an apologist. Almost a criminal.
See what I did there?
Oh look, a malware apologist.
Those are professional programmers, not people who want to create their own "homemade applications".
Malware volume is directly proportional to a systems market share; grow big enough to be noticed by the criminals, and they'll start focusing on breaking your stuff.
The facts don't support your theory. When iOS was the market leader, and Android the minority, it was still Android which was getting virtually all the malware.
Naivete is cute.
You think you're cute?
there is at least one model for oil/natural gas that could explain its creation based of geological processes rather then biological material breaking down
There is at least one model for child birth that involves avian delivery.
The same one that suffers from lots of malware.
People who care about creating their own programs: 0.01%. (and that's being generous.)
People who care about not getting malware: 99.99%.
I know perfectly what what the no true Scotsman fallacy is.
It's not a "no true Scotsman" fallacy given that you haven't demonstrated that what you have seen is in fact a Scotsman, or indeed Via Negativa. I'm not maintaining many teachers are doing it wrong. I know of very few teachers teaching that way, and I've never heard of any in America. If you want to provide me with a link that shows "Via Negativa" being used somewhere you saw it, fair enough. Meanwhile nothing you have described goes beyond harsh teaching.
I have my experience, and nothing you have said overrides that. Especially given that you clearly haven't had the experience.
"The harder I work, the luckier I get."
-- Samuel Goldwin.
P.S. It's not a video, it's a audio tape recording. It's not that you didn't "watch", it's that didn't even visit the page. And yet you think your empty opinion is worth something.
Your opinion that it's unimportant is itself unimportant. It isn't unimportant to Google or Apple.
I think you are confusing "talent" with "confidence." People can be talented without being confident, and I have seen such people shattered by the sort of teaching approach you are proposing.
I've seen people leave at the first opportunity because they didn't have the confidence. I've seen people fail every single day but continue anyway because they have confidence but no talent. I've seen people with talent fail most days, and leave with little confidence but go on to be the best in the world due to what they learned.
Confidence is a part of being exceptional, talent is a part, and so is having realistically high standards for yourself. The problem with mainstream teaching is it coddles confidence, whilst teaching that mediocrity is good enough.
I can only tell you what I have seen, as someone who is in a demanding environment (publish or perish and all that) where it is possible to compare different teaching styles.
So you haven't experienced it, and I have.
The fact that you keep dismissing criticism of Via Negativa, by either assuming that when I refer to people abandoning their dreams I must be talking about myself or by pushing "no true Scotsmen" arguments says a lot about you.
It says that I've heard comments like yours before from people that haven't done via negativa, and from those that weren't talented enough. And that I didn't have a lot of patience with someone who didn't appreciate the power of the pedagogy. If you haven't experienced it, or it wasn't for you, you're not ever going to get it. Once again it's not for everyone. But for those with talent, it's a way to get them to world class performance.
People in tech companies deciding in middle age to have a change in career to something less demanding is not unusual. It's commonplace. Take a look around a tech company - how old are people? Young, right. What happened to the older people? Some went in to management. Some went self-employed. Some changed career.
Nor is people moving on to new companies after a couple of years unusual.
So your observations, such as they are, don't indicate any problem at Apple.
No, I actually studied with the world's top teacher of the subject for 2 years. And he used Via Negativa. It was great for me. But as I said from the start, it's for people with talent. Sorry you either had a bad teacher, or you just didn't match up. Neither is a problem with the pedagogy itself.
Sorry, it's a niche subject field, and so I'm not going to give details, as pieced together with other information it could lead to revealing my identity. I've had online stalking from argumentative people on forums before now.
I've never come across it in a novel. But if you have a reference for that, I'd be interested to know. It might be one I'd like to read.
In the early days of Google having the report a problem feature, I reported a few Street View errors. Checked back a few months later and they were still wrong. So I never bothered after that.
Open Street Maps data has lots of errors, omissions and even areas that are not mapped at all. But unlike Apple Maps it gets a free pass on Slashdot cos it's open, innit.
* Just try and set an alarm to 2 o'clock.
Due to Daylight Savings time, there wasn't any 2 o'clock AM on that particular day. Nor any of the rest of that hour. For sure they should have handled the UI better for this case, but there is no lack of functionality shown here.
Given that you've clearly picked that up from the internet rather than experienced it yourself, and you're posting as AC, I expect the other items in the list to be equally repeating any old claim you can find on the internet. However much real truth there is in them.
Given that they already have TomTom data there's no particular need to buy the company.
And a company like Apple certainly don't need TomTom's help getting into cars. Cars have long since had interfaces for iPods and iPhones to connect into and be controlled by the in car stereo. If and when Apple wants to do the type of integration you're talking about, they'll offer it to the industry, and they'll have car manufacturers competing to be first.
Which just shows how petty they are. They would rather switch to an inferior mapping system and screw their customers than have a Google logo in the app.
The logo AND Google collecting user tracking information. Don't forget that bit.
The problem with the wait a year suggestion is what happens in that year? Either another year of iPhone Maps not having navigation, or adding navigation to to two different Maps apps, one for this year (The old Google Maps app), and a different one for next year (The new Apple Maps app). Duplicating work for Apple, and giving the users 2 radical changes rather than one.
Apple will be forced to buy someone to help with their maps. It isn't just a case of doing bug fixes.
Assuming by bug fixes you mean data fixes, yes it IS just a matter of doing that. That's how Google Maps went from poor to good in the days before Street View.
Apple get for themselves the tracking data that Google wanted. Heat maps of where users are whilst using maps gives lots of information about where the navigable roads are, one way streets, restricted turns etc.
And whilst Google may have street view cars, Apple already have airplanes capturing the photos and topology for the flyover feature. They don't have to take years to develop is - it's already developed and in use.
Google and Nokia are the only people who have it.
You need to read the copyright notices at the bottom of Google Maps as you scroll around the world. Google like every other player licenses most of their data from others.
There's nothing wrong with it. It's perfectly reasonable for Google to make that their position. It it was perfectly reasonable for Apple to have their position that it was unacceptable. They simply failed to reach a mutually acceptable position. A perfectly normal think to happen in business.
The bins were originally removed in the 1990s following an IRA bomb in a litter bin. And that wasn't the first time they'd been used. Metal litter bins make an explosive far more devastating, by containing the blast, and by contributing shrapnel.
They started to return after the IRA risk was over. But they still weren't around in large numbers by 7/7.
7/7 highlighted the risk of bombers in London, and bins may well have been used by subsequent bombers. So it wasn't an imaginary risk.
However, it's only solid bins that are a risk in that way. I see no reason why there aren't the type of bins that are a suspended hoop with a plastic sack hanging from them. That's what they have in Paris.
Now however having a 1000mw laser when you are lost in the bush would definitely help people find you, however I think that these lasers need to be banned like fireworks as the general population is too stupid to respect their dangers.
Are they more or less dangerous than a 1W laser?
That's how the Australian prosecution managed to get someone convicted for possession of child porn for a few comedic Rule 34s of Lisa Simpson. The individual in question had prior convictions for possession of actual child porn, so the jury loathed him.
I don't know the Australian law, but that seems strange. In Britain a jury doesn't know an accused's criminal record (if any) until after they make their verdict. Knowing of an accused's criminal record would be grounds to reject a juror. Which probably makes finding Juries for very famous ex-cons quite difficult.