My father got laid off in the 1980s. My grandfather got laid off in the 1950s. There was no promise of a permanent job.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
That is a myth created by union thugs who are trying to grab power over hiring and firing decisions.
Randian drivel. Thirty years ago, yes it was possible if not common to buy a house, a car, and support a stay-home mother based on a single union salary. Then the Reagan tax cuts, corporate trade, and morans cutting off their noses to spite their faces (i.e., working class people buying union-busting propaganda) took care of that.
We have runaway government and a bunch of people calling for raising of taxes and fees as the answer to our economic problems, as if that will solve inefficiencies in our market
Except you're selling false solutions to false problems. Our economic problems are caused by greed and regulatory capture, not "inefficiencies". And when you have a depressed economy, the only entity that can truly stimulate demand is government. As was proven with the New Deal and even more so with WWII.
Just a few days ago there was a story about a government agent sued for breaching state secret by posting a link to classified materials that were already posted on Wikileaks.
And if he had posted links to a publicly available web page from a public Pentagon site? Then your analogy might be relevant.
Nevermind that the Internet was around before iTunes, or that there were other online stores before iTunes. Credit to Apple anywhere must be denied everywhere.
Remedial logic. Buying alcoholic is a choice. Needing medical care after an injury or during a nasty illness: not a choice.
And that's before getting to the apples to irrelevant oranges nature of the comparison in the first place: if you buy alcohol from a state run store, you get what you pay for. Alcohol. As opposed to for-profit insurance companies, who's profitability is derived by increasing your premiums while trying to find any reason, any reason at all, to deny your claims for health care.
Re:What he took away is more precious than given
on
Steve Jobs Dead At 56
·
· Score: 1
Yes, really. Herd immunity means that the chance of an infection is minimal if the vast majority of the herd is immune to the virus. If the vast majority of iPhones are not jailbroken, much less running software that allows infections to spread, then it's not going to be a problem to worry about, any more than you worry about dying in an earthquake tomorrow. Because the chances are below minimal.
In the month or so between public disclosure and Apple fixing the flaw, any iDevice could have been exploited just from visiting a web page.
And how many were? First users would have had to visit a malicious web site, then view a malicious PDF specifically created to take advantage of that vulnerability. Each additional hoop to jump through is going to reduce the number of people at risk by an order of magnitude.
Let's cut to the chase: there are trojans out there for Macs and Linux. Does the fact that they exist mean that users need to run malware scanners and anti-virus programs? No. Just because something exists, doesn't mean you need to spend any time worrying about it. Unless you're afraid you'll die in an earthquake tomorrow, in which case I think your threat assessment needs some perspective...
Repackaging: combining those smaller hard drives with existing chips bought from someone else and a contracted-out software package to create a better MP3 player.
And there's a word for that: innovation.
Apple was the first manufacturer to use a micro drive in an MP3 player, and the first to use a fast interface (400 MBPS Firewire vs 11 MPBS USB 1.1, or even parallel). That's innovation. Deal with it.
Re:What he took away is more precious than given
on
Steve Jobs Dead At 56
·
· Score: 1
A criticism on Apple's model (and promoting that it shouldn't be replicated) isn't the same as saying there's some failing on Apple's part.
With some of the criticism - like oh, say, the parent posters - yeah, it is.
It's highly pretentious of you to spin it that way, which demonizes the critic (GP)
Nice attempt at deflection, but it's not going to work. The parent poster flatly presented his personal reasons for not wanting an iDevice as flaws with the iDevice platform, same as the people that castigate Apple for not having an easily replaceable battery, when it's only their personal preference.
If you don't like the "walled garden" or want an SD card slot in your phone, then don't freaking buy Apple's products. Not only are they not holding a gun to your head, it's no skin off their noses if you buy a product from someone else.
Re:What he took away is more precious than given
on
Steve Jobs Dead At 56
·
· Score: 1
No. It's your personal preference, and it's rather pretentious to pretend that Apple not meeting said preference is some failing on their part. If Apple's mobile platform wasn't your cup of tea, Jobs probably would have been the first one to tell you to right ahead and buy a device from a competitor.
No, that's you confusing innovation with another i word, invention.
Case in point: Apple did not invent the micro-hard drive or MP3 players. But they innovated by being the first one to use such a drive as the basis for an MP3 player, when everyone else was making tiny capacity flash-based players or pocket-unfriendly players based on laptop or desktop hard drives.
But he reaps a ton of credit for technology he didn't create.
Because he packaged said technology in a way that people wanted to buy it (first microdrive mp3 player with fast i/o), or helped to move the industry (USB-only iMac*). There's a word for this.....innovation.
* Yes, USB, deal with it. Manufacturers in the cutthroat peripherals industry were slow to move to the new standard when "everyone" already had serial or parallel ports on their PC's - why add an extra cost to your device when nobody needs it? That changed when Apple created a captive Mac market with a connector that would also be compatible with PC's made in the last couple of years.
** No, seriously, deal with it. Sure, some USB devices were available at the time. But that doesn't mean that they had taken over the market, anymore than USB 2.0 has been replaced by USB 3.0, just because it's "available".
Re:What he took away is more precious than given
on
Steve Jobs Dead At 56
·
· Score: 1
- production creates jobs, demand is a trivial consequence of production.
Um, what? So if Ford produces 10 million new Pintos, there will magically be a demand for them?
Demand always exists
There's five unemployed people for every new job opening. Even in the great depression, there was "demand" as yes, some people were hired for jobs...with hundreds of applicants showing up.
So saying "demand always exists" is a red herring. Is there enough demand for the existing labor force. Is there enough demand to dig us out of the Reaganomic hole: no.
Production comes first, that's why iPads were created first and then they were consumed.
Because there was a demand for the device, not merely because the devices were produced. Otherwise, no companies would release failed products, ever....
and? Right now Obama is killing people (Americans too) without any trial or any real evidence of any actual guilt. That's FEDERAL power.
And you might have a great point, just as soon as you can find out where I was claiming that Obama was the solution to all of our civil liberties problems, the way people have been for Ron Paul.
Until then, it's a non sequitur.
Why would you want federal government to have a MONOPOLY on such things?
Another non sequitur. The only one talking about government monopolies is you.
As to States doing various things - that's why you have 50 of them.
You mean the old "if you don't like it, move" canard? Because you should have to give up your house, your job, and move to another state because a bunch of radicals pass some crazy laws in their state legislators?
Wouldn't you prefer to move to a State that was closer to what you accept as the law, rather than having to live in a system, that enforces a monopoly law upon you and taxes your income to enforce that?
No, because I'm not limited by binary thinking. Federal government paying for roads, education and health care: good. Federal government paying for warrantless wiretapping and prohibition against harmless drugs like marijuana: bad.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Since you skipped it the first time:
War. Was. Never. Declared. Nor. Authorized. For. Yemen.
As for the AUMF, was Al-Awlkai involved in the 911 attacks? No one has bothered to make that claim, much less provide evidence that he was involved. The Obama Administration claimed he was promoted to "regional commander", but they could just as easily make the same claim of fascist apologist Quila.
Word salad. Where, exactly, is the "bad guy" exception in the 5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Al-Awlkai was not in service to the United States, and no war was declared or authorized in Yemen.
If they had enough intelligence to indicate that the guy was providing training to active combatants against the US
If, if, if, if. No one is bothering to clearly outline just how Al-Awlkai was a "bad guy", much less explain how you manage to kill the cleric without nakedly violating the Constitution.
Hell, its ONLY the Constitution. Maybe instead of wondering why people are trying to get through some thick skulls, and start wondering why you're so quick to shred your own Constitutional rights.
Because if the "bad guys" don't have any rights, than neither do you. And there's nothing stopping someone in a position of authority from declaring you a "bad guy".
You merely offered an assertion and a link, but the link does not back up your assertion. Your problem, not mine.
When Beck is wildly accused with no evidence of posting a video calling "for Muslims around the world to kill Americans "without hesitation"" and is found driving around with al-Qaeda bomb makers and such I'd be happy to support another drone strike. Until then...
Fixed that for you. The only thing that's actually happening is here is a bunch of authoritarians are running around talking about how he's a bad guy, without being able to offer any evidence whatsoever that the narrative has any more accuracy than the yarns about aluminum tubes and Nigerian yellow-cake.
Not only haven't any of you bothered to point to a smoking gun, you haven't even managed a deliberate mistranslation (CNN translating Iranian claims of a right to nuclear energy as claiming a right to nuclear weapons) or video of one part of a rant while leaving out the context of the rant (Wright and "goddamn America).
Start a "The Scientific Party" and let the democratic process do it's work. If there's a demand for such thing, it will be.
Great idea, as soon as you eliminate all money. Until then, your suggestion is, to put it charitably, dumb. There has been a consensus on climate change from climate scientists for some time now - but they don't have billions of dollars to fund astroturf groups (Tea Party) or fund think tanks to write policy (American Enterprise Institute) or buy off politicians from both parties the way the Koch brothers and Exxon do.
My spouse, several of my family members and I are counterpoints to your broad brush. Well educated, fiscal conservatives who "deal in facts" every day
So you're in favor of slashing Pentagon spending, ending the wars, returning to at least Carter-era marginal tax rates and passing universal health care?
Slashdot Mirror
The plural of anecdote is not data.
Randian drivel. Thirty years ago, yes it was possible if not common to buy a house, a car, and support a stay-home mother based on a single union salary. Then the Reagan tax cuts, corporate trade, and morans cutting off their noses to spite their faces (i.e., working class people buying union-busting propaganda) took care of that.
You mean he answered your Concerns.
Except you're selling false solutions to false problems. Our economic problems are caused by greed and regulatory capture, not "inefficiencies". And when you have a depressed economy, the only entity that can truly stimulate demand is government. As was proven with the New Deal and even more so with WWII.
And if he had posted links to a publicly available web page from a public Pentagon site? Then your analogy might be relevant.
Nevermind that the Internet was around before iTunes, or that there were other online stores before iTunes. Credit to Apple anywhere must be denied everywhere.
Remedial logic. Buying alcoholic is a choice. Needing medical care after an injury or during a nasty illness: not a choice.
And that's before getting to the apples to irrelevant oranges nature of the comparison in the first place: if you buy alcohol from a state run store, you get what you pay for. Alcohol. As opposed to for-profit insurance companies, who's profitability is derived by increasing your premiums while trying to find any reason, any reason at all, to deny your claims for health care.
Yes, really. Herd immunity means that the chance of an infection is minimal if the vast majority of the herd is immune to the virus. If the vast majority of iPhones are not jailbroken, much less running software that allows infections to spread, then it's not going to be a problem to worry about, any more than you worry about dying in an earthquake tomorrow. Because the chances are below minimal.
And how many were? First users would have had to visit a malicious web site, then view a malicious PDF specifically created to take advantage of that vulnerability. Each additional hoop to jump through is going to reduce the number of people at risk by an order of magnitude.
Let's cut to the chase: there are trojans out there for Macs and Linux. Does the fact that they exist mean that users need to run malware scanners and anti-virus programs? No. Just because something exists, doesn't mean you need to spend any time worrying about it. Unless you're afraid you'll die in an earthquake tomorrow, in which case I think your threat assessment needs some perspective...
And there's a word for that: innovation.
Apple was the first manufacturer to use a micro drive in an MP3 player, and the first to use a fast interface (400 MBPS Firewire vs 11 MPBS USB 1.1, or even parallel). That's innovation. Deal with it.
With some of the criticism - like oh, say, the parent posters - yeah, it is.
Nice attempt at deflection, but it's not going to work. The parent poster flatly presented his personal reasons for not wanting an iDevice as flaws with the iDevice platform, same as the people that castigate Apple for not having an easily replaceable battery, when it's only their personal preference.
If you don't like the "walled garden" or want an SD card slot in your phone, then don't freaking buy Apple's products. Not only are they not holding a gun to your head, it's no skin off their noses if you buy a product from someone else.
No. It's your personal preference, and it's rather pretentious to pretend that Apple not meeting said preference is some failing on their part. If Apple's mobile platform wasn't your cup of tea, Jobs probably would have been the first one to tell you to right ahead and buy a device from a competitor.
No, that's you confusing innovation with another i word, invention.
Case in point: Apple did not invent the micro-hard drive or MP3 players. But they innovated by being the first one to use such a drive as the basis for an MP3 player, when everyone else was making tiny capacity flash-based players or pocket-unfriendly players based on laptop or desktop hard drives.
Yes. Real computers use vacuum tubes, take up an entire floor in an office complex, and suck enough power to light up a small town.......
While remembering that Xerox got paid....a little detail left out of the movie for dramatic purposes.
Because he packaged said technology in a way that people wanted to buy it (first microdrive mp3 player with fast i/o), or helped to move the industry (USB-only iMac*). There's a word for this.....innovation.
* Yes, USB, deal with it. Manufacturers in the cutthroat peripherals industry were slow to move to the new standard when "everyone" already had serial or parallel ports on their PC's - why add an extra cost to your device when nobody needs it? That changed when Apple created a captive Mac market with a connector that would also be compatible with PC's made in the last couple of years.
** No, seriously, deal with it. Sure, some USB devices were available at the time. But that doesn't mean that they had taken over the market, anymore than USB 2.0 has been replaced by USB 3.0, just because it's "available".
Worry, no. See: herd immunity.
If Steve was holding a gun to your head to buy Apple's products, I guess I could see yours.
Denialists parading around anecdotes as if they were the norm? No, that's not news.
Um, what? So if Ford produces 10 million new Pintos, there will magically be a demand for them?
There's five unemployed people for every new job opening. Even in the great depression, there was "demand" as yes, some people were hired for jobs...with hundreds of applicants showing up.
So saying "demand always exists" is a red herring. Is there enough demand for the existing labor force. Is there enough demand to dig us out of the Reaganomic hole: no.
Because there was a demand for the device, not merely because the devices were produced. Otherwise, no companies would release failed products, ever....
And you might have a great point, just as soon as you can find out where I was claiming that Obama was the solution to all of our civil liberties problems, the way people have been for Ron Paul.
Until then, it's a non sequitur.
Another non sequitur. The only one talking about government monopolies is you.
You mean the old "if you don't like it, move" canard? Because you should have to give up your house, your job, and move to another state because a bunch of radicals pass some crazy laws in their state legislators?
No, because I'm not limited by binary thinking. Federal government paying for roads, education and health care: good. Federal government paying for warrantless wiretapping and prohibition against harmless drugs like marijuana: bad.
Wrong. Period.
Since you skipped it the first time:
War. Was. Never. Declared. Nor. Authorized. For. Yemen.
As for the AUMF, was Al-Awlkai involved in the 911 attacks? No one has bothered to make that claim, much less provide evidence that he was involved. The Obama Administration claimed he was promoted to "regional commander", but they could just as easily make the same claim of fascist apologist Quila.
Where. Is. The. Evidence.
Word salad. Where, exactly, is the "bad guy" exception in the 5th Amendment:
Al-Awlkai was not in service to the United States, and no war was declared or authorized in Yemen.
If, if, if, if. No one is bothering to clearly outline just how Al-Awlkai was a "bad guy", much less explain how you manage to kill the cleric without nakedly violating the Constitution.
Hell, its ONLY the Constitution. Maybe instead of wondering why people are trying to get through some thick skulls, and start wondering why you're so quick to shred your own Constitutional rights.
Because if the "bad guys" don't have any rights, than neither do you. And there's nothing stopping someone in a position of authority from declaring you a "bad guy".
You merely offered an assertion and a link, but the link does not back up your assertion. Your problem, not mine.
Fixed that for you. The only thing that's actually happening is here is a bunch of authoritarians are running around talking about how he's a bad guy, without being able to offer any evidence whatsoever that the narrative has any more accuracy than the yarns about aluminum tubes and Nigerian yellow-cake.
Not only haven't any of you bothered to point to a smoking gun, you haven't even managed a deliberate mistranslation (CNN translating Iranian claims of a right to nuclear energy as claiming a right to nuclear weapons) or video of one part of a rant while leaving out the context of the rant (Wright and "goddamn America).
Great idea, as soon as you eliminate all money. Until then, your suggestion is, to put it charitably, dumb. There has been a consensus on climate change from climate scientists for some time now - but they don't have billions of dollars to fund astroturf groups (Tea Party) or fund think tanks to write policy (American Enterprise Institute) or buy off politicians from both parties the way the Koch brothers and Exxon do.
So you're in favor of slashing Pentagon spending, ending the wars, returning to at least Carter-era marginal tax rates and passing universal health care?