Indeed. Being shallow for a moment, the soft curves of a woman's body are probably one of their most physically attractive features. By contrast, the typical male body is more rugged and utilitarian--built to do work, not to look good. (Obviously, I am generalizing, all generalizations are wrong, blah blah, YMMV.)
It's certainly possible. Bacteria that convert garbage into useful materials (such as plastic) are already in the works. As we understand more and more about genetic engineering, we could solve quite a few problems plaguing us today. We could engineer cows to produce less methane and eat less, limiting their environmental impact. There are plenty of possibilities. Although I think, in the end, we will move past actually raising animals for food at all, having found cheap ways to produce synthetic meat that's indistinguishable (or nearly so) from the real thing. Hey, there was also that guy that figured out how to turn shit into a burger. In the future, stuff like that will be reality, as we simply cannot continue to consume more and more with no regard for the fact that this is a planet with finite resources.
There is a stigma that anything "unnatural" is therefore wrong in some way. Even a lot of atheists tend to think this, despite the fact that its origin tends to be religious in nature. "God (any god, take your pick) made it this way, therefore we should not tamper with it!" Obviously, we shouldn't make genetically modified animals mainstream without understanding their implications--whether they pose any greater health risk to humans, for instance--but the fact that they are "unnatural" shouldn't really enter into it.
Wearing synthetic fibers is "unnatural." Using birth control is "unnatural." Virtually all of modern medicine is "unnatural." Driving cars is "unnatural." Somehow, we manage to get by.
Being against genetically modified animals/crops on principle is really just a version of, "There are some things man was not meant to do."
Well, I'm a longtime Slashdotter and I am also a friend of Rachel's on Facebook--and have been acquainted with her for over 12 years. I wouldn't say we're really good friends or anything, but she's certainly a kind and sincere person and has been dogged by the asshole stalking her for a very long time. He follows her around wherever she goes online and pulls stunts like this to taunt and humiliate her.
I just don't understand why Kickstarter would hold the project manager accountable for comments posted by backers, but not give the manager the ability to do anything about those comments. I mean, why does Kickstarter go around removing "spam" comments from people's projects? They're posted by backers, right? Doesn't that make them inherently not spam, since they're from people who actually support the project?
What Kickstarter seems to be lacking is a sane way of dealing with harassment. Online harassment is sadly common, but also not that hard to deal with when you're talking about comment systems--filter them as spam, put in IP blocks, blah blah. You can make it more difficult for someone to indulge their harassing activities.
That Kickstarter saw fit to ban Rachel and her projects, though, is just really odd--especially in that they basically said there's nothing she can do about it if someone wants to spam her projects until they get banned. What's to stop competing projects from doing that to each other? Privately ask their backers to go to this other project, pledge $1 each, and then spam spam spam! Yeah, no possible way this could be abused...
If nothing else, I hope this leads to Kickstarter putting better mechanisms in place to deal with this kind of behavior.
Yeah, one of the things I got my hands on as a kid were a few disks of public domain BASIC programs gathered from numerous BBSes. Hundreds of programs, all with source code! I had loads of fun reading their code, figuring out what it did, and then tweaking it. Most of them were games, and I usually modified them as a way to cheat. "Oh, I only get 100 fuel in the lunar landing simulator? Nope, I want 10,000 fuel!" (I remember modifying the lunar lander simulator to make the explosions bigger and more dramatic. Kids will be kids.)
I taught myself to program when I was about 8. Got a 286 clone with a huge GWBASIC manual. My father explained that I could use it to make the computer do things. I was sold.:-p (I wish I had cut my teeth on something less awful than BASIC, though.)
I definitely agree that python is a great place to start nowadays. Python's not too quirky or bound to the conventions of a specific platform, it's nice and "generic." The only problem is that he might not want to learn anything else after that. Most languages are ugly or unwieldy next to python (albeit they are probably all much faster.)
So... the original question was why Apple gets shit for their business practices when Nintendo doesn't, and I tried to provide an answer to that. Nintendo doesn't do anything any worse than the other game console companies do (broadly speaking), while Apple takes a much more restrictive approach compared to its peers/competitors.
But thanks for totally missing the point in order to drag up the classic "use something else if you don't like it" argument. Way ahead of you there.;)
I am aware of that. However, using MS' tools also means you don't have access to certain capabilities of the system, doesn't it? Which is the same as what Sony and Nintendo do, as far as that goes. Microsoft is just a bit more open, but that doesn't mean they give you a truly open system where you can do anything you want. It is still within manufacturer-approved limits.
I would agree with you, except that Apple could accomplish this easily enough by only allowing vetted apps in their online store while not forbidding installation of apps from outside the store. I think that's the part people tend to take issue with. If Apple says it's okay, and you want that "seal of approval," then great! But Apple goes a step further and also says, "you cannot install applications from outside our store." And some regard that as a bridge too far.
That's not to say Google's strategy is perfect. They, too, have an official store, but they seem to do a piss-poor job of vetting the apps, having allowed malware to slip through in the past. But at least I can install any.apk I can find on my Android phone, and accept that risk for myself, rather than have Google tell me what I am and am not allowed to install.
In short, I think there is a difference between having an authority that recommends apps and deems them safe/stable, and one that actively forbids anything not explicitly allowed.
To explore this a little bit, consider that Nintendo is a gaming company. Everything they do is centered around producing video game consoles and games to play on them. As long as the devices they sell can do that, I imagine most people don't care that they are locked down. Plus, it's not like you can do homebrew/hacking any more easily on the Sony or Microsoft systems.
Apple, on the other hand, sells more general "lifestyle" devices. The iPhone isn't just a phone--it's a media device, it's a portable game console, it's a web client, etc. etc. And given that it is advertised to have those capabilities, I think it's fair for some to cry foul at the fact that even though the device can do a lot of things (and is advertised thusly by Apple), it can only do them Apple's way, for no good reason except that Apple wants to maintain strict control over the platform.
Granted, most people don't care how hackable and open a particular device is, and I just avoid this whole issue by not purchasing Apple products. But I don't think the comparison to Nintendo is valid, because Nintendo sells devices for very specific purposes, and Apple's control of the iPhone is criticized because it is a more general-purpose device, intentionally crippled to serve Apple's interests.
As some others have pointed out, this is great in principle, but harder to deal with when you've been jobless for a long time and are worried about how you're going to eat for the next month.
I beg to differ. "Intelligent Design" implies that some level of intelligent forethought went into the eventual products of evolution. Saying "God guided the process" or otherwise suggesting that evolution can work in a deterministic fashion is utterly wrongheaded and unscientific, and it gives people the false impression that evolution, as a process, is in some way goal-oriented. But it isn't, and it never has been. You'd be surprised how many people believe evolution is about making less complex organisms into more complex ones, or making the next generation "better" in some objective way than the current one. They imagine it as an iterative improvement process, building toward something specific.
If people understood that evolution does not actually work that way, "Intelligent Design" would be a completely moot point.
So, what, once someone invented the wheel, there was no way to innovate on that? Finding ways to use two or four wheels together wasn't innovation?
Taking an existing idea and making it better is innovation. You're confusing innovation to mean only "invention," which is inaccurate. All inventions are innovations, but not all innovations are inventions. (Cue someone coming by to tell me that many inventions which receive patents aren't innovations at all. Yeah, yeah, I get it. But if you accept something to be an invention, then it is also an innovation. However, something need not be a new invention in order to be innovative. That's the only point I am going for here.)
As much as we might like to reduce economics to pure science, it doesn't work that way. It's driven just as much by emotion as it is cold, hard numbers. How else do you think things like the dotcom and housing bubbles occurred? People were investing on advice as simplistic as, "Hey, you heard about this Internet thing? Better get on board or you'll miss out on millions!"
The same applies just as much to public companies. It's not as if most stockholders have any idea what's going on at Apple from a day-to-day basis. Investor decisions are made based on gut feelings and educated guesses, or they're made with the benefit hindsight, but never with perfect information.
After all, if we had perfect information about the economy in real-time, all the time, there'd be no reason to let humans do the investing at all. Just assign computers to parse that information and make all the decisions, since the information is perfect (and we are assuming, of course, that it is true information.)
Corporations are made up of people, and unless and until we have AIs running them, we still need people to oversee and direct them--people who'd rather not be dead, because they like making money, thank you very much.:)
That's the problem. If you can't agree on a common definition for things, you can't move forward in the discussion. Problem is, both sides know this, so the situation never gets resolved. "It's stealing!" "No, it's infringement!" "Same thing!" "No it isn't!" ad nauseum.
Well, the key is that if you spend all your time debating whether or not copyright infringement is theft, you never actually have to discuss whether copyright infringement is wrong. Arguing definitions lets you avoid addressing the real issues!
There will only be a nuke exchange if one or both parties are completely suicidal. China is run by humans, same as the US. They do not want to die.
The more likely scenario is a proxy war on the Korean peninsula, triggered by the North. China will get heavily involved just to end it quickly and stop a flood of refugees into their territory.
Slashdot Mirror
It also has a maximum total amount of currency, at which point it becomes deflationary by definition.
Indeed. Being shallow for a moment, the soft curves of a woman's body are probably one of their most physically attractive features. By contrast, the typical male body is more rugged and utilitarian--built to do work, not to look good. (Obviously, I am generalizing, all generalizations are wrong, blah blah, YMMV.)
A woman without fat? What would be the point??
It's certainly possible. Bacteria that convert garbage into useful materials (such as plastic) are already in the works. As we understand more and more about genetic engineering, we could solve quite a few problems plaguing us today. We could engineer cows to produce less methane and eat less, limiting their environmental impact. There are plenty of possibilities. Although I think, in the end, we will move past actually raising animals for food at all, having found cheap ways to produce synthetic meat that's indistinguishable (or nearly so) from the real thing. Hey, there was also that guy that figured out how to turn shit into a burger. In the future, stuff like that will be reality, as we simply cannot continue to consume more and more with no regard for the fact that this is a planet with finite resources.
Quite true.
There is a stigma that anything "unnatural" is therefore wrong in some way. Even a lot of atheists tend to think this, despite the fact that its origin tends to be religious in nature. "God (any god, take your pick) made it this way, therefore we should not tamper with it!" Obviously, we shouldn't make genetically modified animals mainstream without understanding their implications--whether they pose any greater health risk to humans, for instance--but the fact that they are "unnatural" shouldn't really enter into it.
Wearing synthetic fibers is "unnatural." Using birth control is "unnatural." Virtually all of modern medicine is "unnatural." Driving cars is "unnatural." Somehow, we manage to get by.
Being against genetically modified animals/crops on principle is really just a version of, "There are some things man was not meant to do."
Or: "Tor-based Narcotics Store Shut Down by Feds"
Well, I'm a longtime Slashdotter and I am also a friend of Rachel's on Facebook--and have been acquainted with her for over 12 years. I wouldn't say we're really good friends or anything, but she's certainly a kind and sincere person and has been dogged by the asshole stalking her for a very long time. He follows her around wherever she goes online and pulls stunts like this to taunt and humiliate her.
I just don't understand why Kickstarter would hold the project manager accountable for comments posted by backers, but not give the manager the ability to do anything about those comments. I mean, why does Kickstarter go around removing "spam" comments from people's projects? They're posted by backers, right? Doesn't that make them inherently not spam, since they're from people who actually support the project?
What Kickstarter seems to be lacking is a sane way of dealing with harassment. Online harassment is sadly common, but also not that hard to deal with when you're talking about comment systems--filter them as spam, put in IP blocks, blah blah. You can make it more difficult for someone to indulge their harassing activities.
That Kickstarter saw fit to ban Rachel and her projects, though, is just really odd--especially in that they basically said there's nothing she can do about it if someone wants to spam her projects until they get banned. What's to stop competing projects from doing that to each other? Privately ask their backers to go to this other project, pledge $1 each, and then spam spam spam! Yeah, no possible way this could be abused...
If nothing else, I hope this leads to Kickstarter putting better mechanisms in place to deal with this kind of behavior.
Yeah, one of the things I got my hands on as a kid were a few disks of public domain BASIC programs gathered from numerous BBSes. Hundreds of programs, all with source code! I had loads of fun reading their code, figuring out what it did, and then tweaking it. Most of them were games, and I usually modified them as a way to cheat. "Oh, I only get 100 fuel in the lunar landing simulator? Nope, I want 10,000 fuel!" (I remember modifying the lunar lander simulator to make the explosions bigger and more dramatic. Kids will be kids.)
Got it in one!
I taught myself to program when I was about 8. Got a 286 clone with a huge GWBASIC manual. My father explained that I could use it to make the computer do things. I was sold. :-p (I wish I had cut my teeth on something less awful than BASIC, though.)
I definitely agree that python is a great place to start nowadays. Python's not too quirky or bound to the conventions of a specific platform, it's nice and "generic." The only problem is that he might not want to learn anything else after that. Most languages are ugly or unwieldy next to python (albeit they are probably all much faster.)
If you don't give a shit, don't reply. It's easy. ;)
So... the original question was why Apple gets shit for their business practices when Nintendo doesn't, and I tried to provide an answer to that. Nintendo doesn't do anything any worse than the other game console companies do (broadly speaking), while Apple takes a much more restrictive approach compared to its peers/competitors.
But thanks for totally missing the point in order to drag up the classic "use something else if you don't like it" argument. Way ahead of you there. ;)
Ah, but you just illustrated the point perfectly. The only reason they "allow" jailbreaking is because a court said they couldn't forbid it.
Given the choice, they absolutely do opt for maximum control over the device you paid for.
I am aware of that. However, using MS' tools also means you don't have access to certain capabilities of the system, doesn't it? Which is the same as what Sony and Nintendo do, as far as that goes. Microsoft is just a bit more open, but that doesn't mean they give you a truly open system where you can do anything you want. It is still within manufacturer-approved limits.
I would agree with you, except that Apple could accomplish this easily enough by only allowing vetted apps in their online store while not forbidding installation of apps from outside the store. I think that's the part people tend to take issue with. If Apple says it's okay, and you want that "seal of approval," then great! But Apple goes a step further and also says, "you cannot install applications from outside our store." And some regard that as a bridge too far.
That's not to say Google's strategy is perfect. They, too, have an official store, but they seem to do a piss-poor job of vetting the apps, having allowed malware to slip through in the past. But at least I can install any .apk I can find on my Android phone, and accept that risk for myself, rather than have Google tell me what I am and am not allowed to install.
In short, I think there is a difference between having an authority that recommends apps and deems them safe/stable, and one that actively forbids anything not explicitly allowed.
To explore this a little bit, consider that Nintendo is a gaming company. Everything they do is centered around producing video game consoles and games to play on them. As long as the devices they sell can do that, I imagine most people don't care that they are locked down. Plus, it's not like you can do homebrew/hacking any more easily on the Sony or Microsoft systems.
Apple, on the other hand, sells more general "lifestyle" devices. The iPhone isn't just a phone--it's a media device, it's a portable game console, it's a web client, etc. etc. And given that it is advertised to have those capabilities, I think it's fair for some to cry foul at the fact that even though the device can do a lot of things (and is advertised thusly by Apple), it can only do them Apple's way, for no good reason except that Apple wants to maintain strict control over the platform.
Granted, most people don't care how hackable and open a particular device is, and I just avoid this whole issue by not purchasing Apple products. But I don't think the comparison to Nintendo is valid, because Nintendo sells devices for very specific purposes, and Apple's control of the iPhone is criticized because it is a more general-purpose device, intentionally crippled to serve Apple's interests.
I was still using dialup in 2002, you insensitive clod!
What you've suggested is, unsurprisingly, very controversial in the medical and legal communities.
Here is an interesting paper on the subject: http://www.leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/547/Flannery.html
As some others have pointed out, this is great in principle, but harder to deal with when you've been jobless for a long time and are worried about how you're going to eat for the next month.
I beg to differ. "Intelligent Design" implies that some level of intelligent forethought went into the eventual products of evolution. Saying "God guided the process" or otherwise suggesting that evolution can work in a deterministic fashion is utterly wrongheaded and unscientific, and it gives people the false impression that evolution, as a process, is in some way goal-oriented. But it isn't, and it never has been. You'd be surprised how many people believe evolution is about making less complex organisms into more complex ones, or making the next generation "better" in some objective way than the current one. They imagine it as an iterative improvement process, building toward something specific.
If people understood that evolution does not actually work that way, "Intelligent Design" would be a completely moot point.
So, what, once someone invented the wheel, there was no way to innovate on that? Finding ways to use two or four wheels together wasn't innovation?
Taking an existing idea and making it better is innovation. You're confusing innovation to mean only "invention," which is inaccurate. All inventions are innovations, but not all innovations are inventions. (Cue someone coming by to tell me that many inventions which receive patents aren't innovations at all. Yeah, yeah, I get it. But if you accept something to be an invention, then it is also an innovation. However, something need not be a new invention in order to be innovative. That's the only point I am going for here.)
As much as we might like to reduce economics to pure science, it doesn't work that way. It's driven just as much by emotion as it is cold, hard numbers. How else do you think things like the dotcom and housing bubbles occurred? People were investing on advice as simplistic as, "Hey, you heard about this Internet thing? Better get on board or you'll miss out on millions!"
The same applies just as much to public companies. It's not as if most stockholders have any idea what's going on at Apple from a day-to-day basis. Investor decisions are made based on gut feelings and educated guesses, or they're made with the benefit hindsight, but never with perfect information.
After all, if we had perfect information about the economy in real-time, all the time, there'd be no reason to let humans do the investing at all. Just assign computers to parse that information and make all the decisions, since the information is perfect (and we are assuming, of course, that it is true information.)
Corporations are made up of people, and unless and until we have AIs running them, we still need people to oversee and direct them--people who'd rather not be dead, because they like making money, thank you very much. :)
That's the problem. If you can't agree on a common definition for things, you can't move forward in the discussion. Problem is, both sides know this, so the situation never gets resolved. "It's stealing!" "No, it's infringement!" "Same thing!" "No it isn't!" ad nauseum.
Well, the key is that if you spend all your time debating whether or not copyright infringement is theft, you never actually have to discuss whether copyright infringement is wrong. Arguing definitions lets you avoid addressing the real issues!
There will only be a nuke exchange if one or both parties are completely suicidal. China is run by humans, same as the US. They do not want to die.
The more likely scenario is a proxy war on the Korean peninsula, triggered by the North. China will get heavily involved just to end it quickly and stop a flood of refugees into their territory.