I think before we start analyzing why 12 step programs work, maybe we should determine if they work. While everyone just assumes 12 step programs are the answers, there is very little scientific evidence and studies on whether they work better than anything else. It is a hard subject to study, but I think something that should be done since the state is sentencing people to 12 step programs. Before we force people to go into programs (especially one that force people to accept that there is a "higher power") I think there should be strong studies done to show that these programs work better than other programs or at least better than a person just deciding to stop.
Actually, there are numerous studies on the effectiveness of 12 step programs and their success rate is around 40% versus 55% for dedicated therapy with a psychologist and less than 5% for self-treatment. I don't remember the issue, but in 2011 Scientific American had an article about it and listed several recent studies.
As for forcing people into accepting their is a higher power, nobody is forced into AA or other 12 step programs, it is totally voluntary and there are other options for therapy. As the SA article showed, they are not even the most effective programs, but they are effective. Like all forms of thereapy though, different programs/techniques work better for some than others and just becuase it works for one person does not mean it will for another. That is why courts will usually mandate therapy, but they will not mandate a specific therapy.
It trades one addiction for others: religion, caffeine, and nicotine. It trades personal responsibility for not drinking, and thus drinking, to an imaginary higher power.
Maybe, but I would rather a person who believes in a higher power get behind the wheel of a car than an alcoholic. Just saying.
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that 12-step programs are nothing more than window-dressing. That they take credit for spontaneous remission - the percentage of people who just quit on their own.
For example, alcoholics have a spontaneous remission rate of roughly 5% - so if an AA program has a 5% success rate (including the people who give up on the program - the AA people don't like to count them) then AA is just a no-op.
Here's one of many analyses making the argument that 12-steppers are just bad at math.
An article in Scientific American in 2011 (sorry I don't have the direct reference) showed AA had a 40% success rate. Dedicated therapy something like 55% and people going cold turkey or self-treating less than 5%.
I'm not sure why there is a discrepency between the link you quoted and the article in Scientific American. If I recall, the SA article quoted numeous statistically valid independant studies that corroborated their reported findings. Maybe the paper you referenced wasn't a statistically valid sample? I don't know, but given the plethora of studies that show otherwise, while not as successful as dedicated therapy, 12 step programs are universally recognized and accepted as being successful.
"Since the inception of Alcoholics Anonymous — the progenitor of 12-step programs — science has sometimes been at odds with the notion that laypeople can cure themselves because the numerous spiritual references that go with the 12-step program puts A.A. on "the fringe" in the minds of many scientists.
12 step programs do not claim to cure anything. If an alcoholic enters AA, even if they refrain from alcohol for years, they are still an alcholic. Nothing is cured, they have only developed ways to deal with the alcoholism. Same is true for other addicitons treated through 12 step programs.
Maybe if scientists viewed 12 step programs as behavior modification programs, they wouldn't be so perplexed.
So are you questioning that older people do more reading than younger people or that older people prefer books? According to B&N, most books are purchased by those over 40.
From what I read in your post, though, the advantage to e-books is the decluttering it allows and the pinch to zoom. You also list several advantages to paper books. The question is whether or not the advantages of the e-books outweigh those paper books? For many, the answer is no.
But... I went to look for a book which has been out for a few years. I could buy a paperback for $8 if I wanted to drive somewhere. Or... I could buy an ebook for $12.
That's gonna cut back on sales a fair bit.
And when you are done with the book, you have the option to give it to someone else or sell it used. But seriously, for years we heard that the price of books was so high because of the actual cost to print them. If that were true then e-books should cost next to nothing, but they don't. Ebooks to publishing are what generic drugs are to health insurance plans. Both save the consumer a little bit of money but save the producer (publisher or insurance plan) a shit load of money.
It's simple demographics. Who does the most reading? Older people. Who buys the most tablet devices, younger folks. Simply put, young twits don't read but us old farts do and when we do, we like read words printed on real paper, not e-paper. Besides, if I fall asleep in my chair and my book slips and falls to the floor, I lose my place. If my e-reader/tablet hits the floor, there is a chance that it breaks the screen (and before anybody says buy a case for it, well, if you are going to make it as thick as a book, why not buy a book?).
In short, like many things in the tech world, ebooks didn't live up to the hype. Maybe it was the pricing. Maybe it was the devices. Maybe it was the marketing. Maybe it was the . But in the end all of those maybes are really just another way of saying that the publishers misread the demographics. It's really simple If you want to sell books (paper or e), you have to look at who is the biggest consumer of books and then put it into a format that the consumer wants. All of the advantages of ebooks don't matter if the consumer wants a real book. It's plain and simple.
Well what would you store on your PC if you had a Terrabyte of data?
If you have more storage apps will find a way to make use of it. Less Cloud and more locally running. Is Cloud Computing a good thing or a bad thing now... I am getting confused.
Well, since most people don't have a TB of storage on their home computer and for most people their hard drive is not out of space, it would stand to reason that a TB of storage on their phone would also be underutilized. Most likely, a TB of storage will wind up being filled with cache and log files.
What about ripping videos and storing those? Or games? Lots of audio (seriously, 16gb isn't *that* much, especially if you do higher than 192kbit ripping), lots of pictures which keep getting bigger, lots of video which keeps getting better quality...
We're talking about a cell phone, right? Sure you can do all of that on a phone, but really, why? A casual user isn't going to need hundreds of GB of storage to do that and a serious and professional user is going to need tools that a phone can't provide.
Phones, like tablets are really about consuming data, not creating it. Sure you can take photos and video clips with one, but even most low end digital cameras will give better quality images. In the end, if you are a content creator, you will use the best tools for creating content and a phone, designed for the consumer market with the purpose of consuming content is unlikely to be that tool.
Not if it is backed up somewhere else. Like your Google drive, or something bigger.
See that's what this is really about. Monetizing the online storage end of it. From the article, these huge 3D drives will have a useful life upto 5 years. Since you don't know exactly when in the 5 year period they will crap out, you better have all your stuff backed up somewhere. How much will Google or Dropbox or even Samsung charge your for a TB of storage? And what will your ISP charge you to transfer that much data? I'm pretty sure Sprint's unlimited plan won't cover TB transfers.
While I see some great uses for such storage, carrying it around in my phone isn't necessarily one of them.
You are still talking about XP, right? You can kind of remove internet explorer, but not all of it, it is still there. But for Win 7 and 8, yes, you can finally remove it because Microsoft removed the part that Windows itself depended on and put that in a separate library.
I'm not arguing the merits of linux. You are reading that in to the discussion. I am only pointing out that saying linux is vulnerable because Google additions for Android are vulnerable is like saying OS X is vulnerable because Adobe is vulnerable. The two are simply not the same and trying to equate them actually weakens your argument.
There are trojans out there for linux, but they are few and far between compared with Windows. Android has significantly more, but Windows has the most. And that makes sense given a) the popularity of windows and b) how the system was designed.
All OSs have there pros and cons. Ultimately they also brings something different to the table (end user). So just chill. Besides, if one is to believe the press, the desktop is dead anyway.
While what you say has some truth, the part you leave out is that the attacks against Android were not against the linux kernel used by Android, but the Android specific parts. So, while while your numbers may be accurate as they quote Trendmicro, they misrepresent the reality. Just as a vulnerability in Firefox is not a linux vulnerability, even though Firefox ships with most linux distributions, likewise, a vulnerability found in the Google specific Android pieces does not make it a linux kernel vulnerability. If those pieces were tied directly into the kernel by the kernel developers, that would be different. But just like if I raise my Jeep and it becomes unstable when cornering, that doesn't mean it is a problem with all Jeeps, Google, modifying specific pieces of "linux" does not mean that the vulnerability is a problem with linux.
While I never said linux was immune from an attack, I'll worry about that when my bank gets online banking to work with linux. But, yeah, I'm sure people all over the world who click on an email attachment can get all sorts of stuff installed on their computer. Of course, the article was a bit thin on how that would actually happen, unless you are running as root. First warning would be that pesky enter root password dialog. But then there are all of those people who send their banking information to the wife of the Nigerian prince to get their share in a lottery winning, so who knows, maybe they would click on such a thing.
But regardless, while threats may exists, they are far fewer on linux and bsd based systems than Windows. Fewer, that is, unless the OS manufacturer has done something to open up vulnerabilities.
I didn't wanted to waste time migrating Desktop, that's was the problem.
Your argument is that it was too difficult to switch to a different linux desktop but then you switched to a Mac with OS X?
You are plain wrong. People use computers to solve problems, not to get problems.
If switching to MacOS X is easier and less painful than switching a Desktop, people will do it.
In what universe is it easier to switch from Gnome 2 to Mac OS X versus a different linux desktop, say XFCE which was already 90% configured like Gnome 2 out of the box?
Let me get this straight, other than the desktop interface, all of your applications and data would be the same if you stuck with linux. With a Mac, you had to transfer data and learn new apps. As for the interface, you stated that
That thing was working fine, working well and I was satisfied. My working-flow just works, and the (very few) quirks on Gnome 2 was already know and workarounded. My Gnome 2 Desktop machine was simply the best user experience I ever had on a professional machine, it suited perfectly to my needs and expectations.
and yet OS X is about as far from Gnome 2 as you could get. No, I think my original hypothesis was correct, you were already looking to switch to a Mac and this just gave you an excuse.
That's fine. The Mac OS X is a fine interface and things do just work. It's okay to want to buy a Mac and you don't have to blame Gnome or OpenSuse. Besides, as you state, you've already shelled out the money, so you might as well enjoy it.
OMG are you REALLY gonna drag out the old "Its not the OS, its the kernel" bullshit? Really? because by that logic windows is 100% bug free as well since no bug that I know of attacks the WinNT kernel but the stuff above it as well.
I'm sorry dude but that bullshit won't fly, a kernel with nothing else is fricking worthless and every. single. mainstream. distro all come with the SAME APPS over and over AND OVER so that shit ain't gonna fly. Firefox, Chromium, Gimp, Libre office, you'll find those on pretty much every mainstream desktop distro there is so if any of those are pwned then yes Virginia Linux is pwned.
Really? I can remove firefox from linux, I can't remove IE or most of the other "parts" that shipped with Windows. But surely even somebody as wise as you must be can tell the difference between Android and say Puppy Linux or Android's interface and KDE. If Google made a vulnerable OS based on the linux kernel (or if even Ubuntu did it), fine blame them, but then why not blame the BSDs for Apple's flaws with iOS and OS X?
As for Firefox, Chromium, Libre Office, etc having a vulnerability meaning linux has a vulnerability, well, then that would mean Windows does too as they run on Windows right? Or, is it possible that an application can be vulnerable without the OS being the source of the problem?
I'm not some zealot who professes linux is impenetrable or that it is the savour of everything, but at the same time, to call linux vulnerable because of what Google has tacked on top of it makes no sense. But hey, it's a free world, well most parts, so you are free to believe and spout whatever you want. But, we get it, you don't like linux, it's okay.
Sorry I lost faith in Linux after gnome 3. Windoes 8 might make me reconsider though:-)
There are alternatives to gnome 3. Xfce was pretty much like Gnome 2 and KDE could be made to look and work like just about anything. So, if gnome 3 pushed you away from linux, chances are you were already dissatisfied before gnome 3 and just needed an excuse. It's just too bad that Gnome 3 was released when it was. 3.8 is pretty usuable and the upcoming 3.10 looks better yet. But not to start a desktop war, as I stated, there are many alternatives, even if Gnome 3 isn't to one's liking, choose a different one.
While what you say has some truth, the part you leave out is that the attacks against Android were not against the linux kernel used by Android, but the Android specific parts. So, while while your numbers may be accurate as they quote Trendmicro, they misrepresent the reality. Just as a vulnerability in Firefox is not a linux vulnerability, even though Firefox ships with most linux distributions, likewise, a vulnerability found in the Google specific Android pieces does not make it a linux kernel vulnerability. If those pieces were tied directly into the kernel by the kernel developers, that would be different. But just like if I raise my Jeep and it becomes unstable when cornering, that doesn't mean it is a problem with all Jeeps, Google, modifying specific pieces of "linux" does not mean that the vulnerability is a problem with linux.
In your example, the writer is actually copying the photos into his book. That's one thing. Google, OTOH, isn't publishing a book containing copies of the photos. They're creating an index of photos that exist. To make it minimally useful, that index has to include a thumbnail or other depiction of the photo so viewers can tell whether that's the image they were looking for or not (a prerequisite for deciding whether they want to go to where that image is published or not). I'd say that if a writer wanted to do the same thing, publish an index of where all these works were with thumbnails of them, they ought to be able to do it under fair use just like Google does. But producing an art book with full-size high-quality reproductions of the photos wouldn't be producing an index.
Also, Google only creates an index of what the publisher has made publicly available. So what Google reproduces on their pages is by definition something the publisher isn't getting paid for when people just look at it. Google doesn't go behind paywalls or subscription barriers to find things, unless perhaps the publishers have explicitly coded their site to give Google that access for free and in that case IMO it's the publisher's look-out. To me it makes a difference in what's "fair" when you're handing out full-sized copies for free, no strings attached, to anybody who grabs one off the table vs. if they can only get them by coming into your shop and plopping down their money first.
So, based on your reasoning, I should be free to include small images of all of those pictures in my paper printed catalog because like Google, I would simply be creating an index and for it to be useful requires a thumbnail. Of course, there is ample case law specifically against that in printed material, so the real difference then is that if you do it on paper media, it is a copyright violation, but on-line it is not? That doesn't hold water, either, which is why Google says to file a DMCA complaint.
Now, why would they do that? Well, it is a hell of a lot cheaper to use content illegally and make the content holder tell you to take it down than it is to research what images you can use legally. The actual process to remove is pretty inexpensive, however. But, if you print all of those images in a book, the cost to remove infringing ones means you have to pull the book which already has the sunken print costs. Therefore, people research and license content up front.
In short, it has nothing to do with how the photos are being used. Both are using copyrighted content. In Google's case, it is cheaper to remove the infringing content once it is discovered to be infringing. No more or less. But DMCA is only one avenue to have the content removed. If enough content owners were impacted and could show that Google indiscriminately and knowingly took their images (say they took images from the MLB or the NFL), the copyright owners could skip the whole DMCA takedown notice and go straight to the courts for copyright infringement.
That brings it back to the gist of the article, though. For a small guy, whether an individual or even a small corporation, they don't have the wherewithal to take a company like Google to court and Google knows it, so they arrogantly and blatantly violate people's copyrights all the time.
Humans aren't losing out on content to machines. Yes, Google and others scrape content, but they aren't machines. They are corporations owned by other humans. All this article is about is small players not being able to compete against big corporations. That has almost always been the case. The fact that laws like the DMCA make it even harder for small players to compete just aggravate an already imbalanced system.
The middle ages had a feudal system, the modern world has a corporate system. In the middle ages, the king would only listen to those who filled his coffers. The same is true today with the government. Is there any wonder that small players have no voice, when an individual is only allowed to make a $2,600 campaign contribution, but with recent rulings a corporation can spend whatever it wants?
Contrary to popular belief, big corporations like government regulation because the cost to comply forces out smaller competition. Then, once the competition is gone, they lobby against the regulation and their bought and paid for representatives are all but too happy to comply.
Pope Paul VI said "If you want peace, work for justice." If he were alive today, he would probably add "If you want justice, get the money out of politics." Because, until you do, the US will continue to remain a plutocracy, where the wealthy class controls the government and the wealthiest class of all, now that the SCOTUS has determined them as persons under the law, are the mega corporations.
So now the US needs Snowden for national security and to protect him from being tortured and coerced to give up secrets? Assuming if that threat is true, maybe if they had led with it instead of making him enemy number 1, this would have played out differently.
This tactic of bait and switch seems all to common with the US. Invade Iraq because of of their involvement with 9/11. Oops once it is known by the public that they weren't involved with 9/11, change the story. Invade Irag because of WMD. Oops, once it is known by the public that there weren't any WMDs, change the story. I've lost track of why the US invaded Irag.
Jump to Snowden. The cycle repeats. He's been branded a traitor, a spy, a terrorist... all to get him back and now that those have failed, we need to get him back to protect him in case he is captured.
So which is it? Does the US want him back because he is a bad guy or to protect him? Just spin the wheel and see. At least on Wheel of Fortune, you have the opportunity to win a trip to some nice resort. With the NSA and the US military complex, the only resort they offer is on the tip of Cuba.
Sure, it's unauthorized. But it's also protected under fair use.
It is protected under fair use if you record it for your personal use. However, MLB has already won a case where the court determined that streaming the recording to a different location was not protected as once it left the original domicile, and was released on the public internet, it was not longer personal use. Maybe someday the law will catch up with the technology, but currently personal use of a video recording means watching the video recording. It does not include streaming it.
From your post, it sounds like there is already an alternative "green" ammunition because the military is using it and that it is recognized that lead can be a problem because of the regulations surrounding shooting ranges.
Pure lead does not dissolve in water, you are correct. However, in the presence of water, lead will readily form other compounds such as lead acetate or lead sulfate or lead phosphate. While those and most lead compounds do not dissolve in pure water (pH 7.0), lead compounds will readily dissolve and leach if the water is even a bit acidic. Since most rain and soil is acidic, pure lead bullets will readily convert to a lead compound which will readily dissolve and leach into the soil and the water table. Now the rate of dissolve may not be great, but over time, those lead bullets, will leach more and more lead into the environment. Maybe not in your lifetime, but in somebody's. There is a reason we don't use lead pipes any more and we don't drink wine (an acidic drink) out of lead tankards.
So, while this may be a push by anti-gun advocates, that does not change the chemistry involved with lead nor the biological impact. We've know about the dangers of lead for a very long time. It's been banned from water fowl hunting for decades because of its propensity to contaminate the water, fish and birds, along with anything that might consume them. If there are viable alternatives, then what difference does it make what one uses for a bullet? A 150 grain bullet of a particular shape is going to have the same flight characteristics whether it is made from lead or not. Steel shot is just as effective at killing waterfowl as lead shot, so it stands to reason that it would be just as effective as lead shot for other uses, too.
The ship builders said the scientists were wrong about asbestos. History shows that the scientists were correct. The tobacco industry said the scientists were wrong about smoking. History shows that the scientists were correct. The auto industry said the scientists were wrong about lead based fuels. History shows that the scientists were correct. History shows that the detergent companies said the scientists were wrong about phosphates and the environment. History shows that the scientists were correct. The tourist industry said the scientists were wrong about sun exposure. History shows that the scientists were correct.
Who knows, though, the scientists can't always be right, can they? Maybe the NRA has found the one thing the scientists are lying about. But then there is that darn chemistry stuff. You can't just get around it. Maybe the NRA is right and the scientists are lying, but then there would have to be an awfully big conspiracy, centuries in the planning to fake the results we know about the chemistry of lead compounds.
So, even if this is politically motivated, it doesn't change the science and until somebody can refute the science, it's a safer bet to bet on the scientists than the NRA.
It appears we took down the NRA site that his summary linked to. Apparently the slashdot conservatives wanted to get the talking points from it before the slashdot liberal pointed out that lead is bad?
(yes, I know I'll be down-modded for this. let me have it)
But lead is bad. Surely even a slashdot conservative can recognize that.
How about if they want to use lead, they have to police their ammo and collect up the spent bullets. Slap a deposit fee on each lead bullet and give it back when the lead is returned. Obviously it won't be as simple as that, but the old deposit system worked well for pop bottles. Bullets made out of lead are not protected by the 2nd amendment (otherwise waterfowl hunters could use lead shot). Simply put, if you want to put lead in the environment then you should have to clean up the environment just like any other toxic waste producer is forced to do.
Slashdot Mirror
I think before we start analyzing why 12 step programs work, maybe we should determine if they work. While everyone just assumes 12 step programs are the answers, there is very little scientific evidence and studies on whether they work better than anything else. It is a hard subject to study, but I think something that should be done since the state is sentencing people to 12 step programs. Before we force people to go into programs (especially one that force people to accept that there is a "higher power") I think there should be strong studies done to show that these programs work better than other programs or at least better than a person just deciding to stop.
Actually, there are numerous studies on the effectiveness of 12 step programs and their success rate is around 40% versus 55% for dedicated therapy with a psychologist and less than 5% for self-treatment. I don't remember the issue, but in 2011 Scientific American had an article about it and listed several recent studies.
As for forcing people into accepting their is a higher power, nobody is forced into AA or other 12 step programs, it is totally voluntary and there are other options for therapy. As the SA article showed, they are not even the most effective programs, but they are effective. Like all forms of thereapy though, different programs/techniques work better for some than others and just becuase it works for one person does not mean it will for another. That is why courts will usually mandate therapy, but they will not mandate a specific therapy.
It trades one addiction for others: religion, caffeine, and nicotine.
It trades personal responsibility for not drinking, and thus drinking, to an imaginary higher power.
Maybe, but I would rather a person who believes in a higher power get behind the wheel of a car than an alcoholic. Just saying.
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that 12-step programs are nothing more than window-dressing. That they take credit for spontaneous remission - the percentage of people who just quit on their own.
For example, alcoholics have a spontaneous remission rate of roughly 5% - so if an AA program has a 5% success rate (including the people who give up on the program - the AA people don't like to count them) then AA is just a no-op.
Here's one of many analyses making the argument that 12-steppers are just bad at math.
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html
An article in Scientific American in 2011 (sorry I don't have the direct reference) showed AA had a 40% success rate. Dedicated therapy something like 55% and people going cold turkey or self-treating less than 5%.
I'm not sure why there is a discrepency between the link you quoted and the article in Scientific American. If I recall, the SA article quoted numeous statistically valid independant studies that corroborated their reported findings. Maybe the paper you referenced wasn't a statistically valid sample? I don't know, but given the plethora of studies that show otherwise, while not as successful as dedicated therapy, 12 step programs are universally recognized and accepted as being successful.
"Since the inception of Alcoholics Anonymous — the progenitor of 12-step programs — science has sometimes been at odds with the notion that laypeople can cure themselves because the numerous spiritual references that go with the 12-step program puts A.A. on "the fringe" in the minds of many scientists.
12 step programs do not claim to cure anything. If an alcoholic enters AA, even if they refrain from alcohol for years, they are still an alcholic. Nothing is cured, they have only developed ways to deal with the alcoholism. Same is true for other addicitons treated through 12 step programs.
Maybe if scientists viewed 12 step programs as behavior modification programs, they wouldn't be so perplexed.
So are you questioning that older people do more reading than younger people or that older people prefer books? According to B&N, most books are purchased by those over 40.
From what I read in your post, though, the advantage to e-books is the decluttering it allows and the pinch to zoom. You also list several advantages to paper books. The question is whether or not the advantages of the e-books outweigh those paper books? For many, the answer is no.
I have certainly bought ebooks.
But... I went to look for a book which has been out for a few years. I could buy a paperback for $8 if I wanted to drive somewhere. Or... I could buy an ebook for $12.
That's gonna cut back on sales a fair bit.
And when you are done with the book, you have the option to give it to someone else or sell it used. But seriously, for years we heard that the price of books was so high because of the actual cost to print them. If that were true then e-books should cost next to nothing, but they don't. Ebooks to publishing are what generic drugs are to health insurance plans. Both save the consumer a little bit of money but save the producer (publisher or insurance plan) a shit load of money.
It's simple demographics. Who does the most reading? Older people. Who buys the most tablet devices, younger folks. Simply put, young twits don't read but us old farts do and when we do, we like read words printed on real paper, not e-paper. Besides, if I fall asleep in my chair and my book slips and falls to the floor, I lose my place. If my e-reader/tablet hits the floor, there is a chance that it breaks the screen (and before anybody says buy a case for it, well, if you are going to make it as thick as a book, why not buy a book?).
In short, like many things in the tech world, ebooks didn't live up to the hype. Maybe it was the pricing. Maybe it was the devices. Maybe it was the marketing. Maybe it was the . But in the end all of those maybes are really just another way of saying that the publishers misread the demographics. It's really simple If you want to sell books (paper or e), you have to look at who is the biggest consumer of books and then put it into a format that the consumer wants. All of the advantages of ebooks don't matter if the consumer wants a real book. It's plain and simple.
Well what would you store on your PC if you had a Terrabyte of data?
If you have more storage apps will find a way to make use of it. Less Cloud and more locally running. Is Cloud Computing a good thing or a bad thing now... I am getting confused.
Well, since most people don't have a TB of storage on their home computer and for most people their hard drive is not out of space, it would stand to reason that a TB of storage on their phone would also be underutilized. Most likely, a TB of storage will wind up being filled with cache and log files.
What about ripping videos and storing those? Or games? Lots of audio (seriously, 16gb isn't *that* much, especially if you do higher than 192kbit ripping), lots of pictures which keep getting bigger, lots of video which keeps getting better quality...
We're talking about a cell phone, right? Sure you can do all of that on a phone, but really, why? A casual user isn't going to need hundreds of GB of storage to do that and a serious and professional user is going to need tools that a phone can't provide.
Phones, like tablets are really about consuming data, not creating it. Sure you can take photos and video clips with one, but even most low end digital cameras will give better quality images. In the end, if you are a content creator, you will use the best tools for creating content and a phone, designed for the consumer market with the purpose of consuming content is unlikely to be that tool.
Not if it is backed up somewhere else. Like your Google drive, or something bigger.
See that's what this is really about. Monetizing the online storage end of it. From the article, these huge 3D drives will have a useful life upto 5 years. Since you don't know exactly when in the 5 year period they will crap out, you better have all your stuff backed up somewhere. How much will Google or Dropbox or even Samsung charge your for a TB of storage? And what will your ISP charge you to transfer that much data? I'm pretty sure Sprint's unlimited plan won't cover TB transfers.
While I see some great uses for such storage, carrying it around in my phone isn't necessarily one of them.
Linux can still boot up on a 1.44 MB floppy!
Shhh. Don't be telling people they can run an operating system in less than 2 GB.
The hell with running an operating system in less than 2GB. Where can you find a computer that still has a floppy drive?
You are still talking about XP, right? You can kind of remove internet explorer, but not all of it, it is still there. But for Win 7 and 8, yes, you can finally remove it because Microsoft removed the part that Windows itself depended on and put that in a separate library.
I'm not arguing the merits of linux. You are reading that in to the discussion. I am only pointing out that saying linux is vulnerable because Google additions for Android are vulnerable is like saying OS X is vulnerable because Adobe is vulnerable. The two are simply not the same and trying to equate them actually weakens your argument.
There are trojans out there for linux, but they are few and far between compared with Windows. Android has significantly more, but Windows has the most. And that makes sense given a) the popularity of windows and b) how the system was designed.
All OSs have there pros and cons. Ultimately they also brings something different to the table (end user). So just chill. Besides, if one is to believe the press, the desktop is dead anyway.
While what you say has some truth, the part you leave out is that the attacks against Android were not against the linux kernel used by Android, but the Android specific parts. So, while while your numbers may be accurate as they quote Trendmicro, they misrepresent the reality. Just as a vulnerability in Firefox is not a linux vulnerability, even though Firefox ships with most linux distributions, likewise, a vulnerability found in the Google specific Android pieces does not make it a linux kernel vulnerability. If those pieces were tied directly into the kernel by the kernel developers, that would be different. But just like if I raise my Jeep and it becomes unstable when cornering, that doesn't mean it is a problem with all Jeeps, Google, modifying specific pieces of "linux" does not mean that the vulnerability is a problem with linux.
You mean like this one?
While I never said linux was immune from an attack, I'll worry about that when my bank gets online banking to work with linux. But, yeah, I'm sure people all over the world who click on an email attachment can get all sorts of stuff installed on their computer. Of course, the article was a bit thin on how that would actually happen, unless you are running as root. First warning would be that pesky enter root password dialog. But then there are all of those people who send their banking information to the wife of the Nigerian prince to get their share in a lottery winning, so who knows, maybe they would click on such a thing.
But regardless, while threats may exists, they are far fewer on linux and bsd based systems than Windows. Fewer, that is, unless the OS manufacturer has done something to open up vulnerabilities.
I didn't wanted to waste time migrating Desktop, that's was the problem.
Your argument is that it was too difficult to switch to a different linux desktop but then you switched to a Mac with OS X?
You are plain wrong. People use computers to solve problems, not to get problems.
If switching to MacOS X is easier and less painful than switching a Desktop, people will do it.
In what universe is it easier to switch from Gnome 2 to Mac OS X versus a different linux desktop, say XFCE which was already 90% configured like Gnome 2 out of the box?
Let me get this straight, other than the desktop interface, all of your applications and data would be the same if you stuck with linux. With a Mac, you had to transfer data and learn new apps. As for the interface, you stated that
That thing was working fine, working well and I was satisfied. My working-flow just works, and the (very few) quirks on Gnome 2 was already know and workarounded. My Gnome 2 Desktop machine was simply the best user experience I ever had on a professional machine, it suited perfectly to my needs and expectations.
and yet OS X is about as far from Gnome 2 as you could get. No, I think my original hypothesis was correct, you were already looking to switch to a Mac and this just gave you an excuse.
That's fine. The Mac OS X is a fine interface and things do just work. It's okay to want to buy a Mac and you don't have to blame Gnome or OpenSuse. Besides, as you state, you've already shelled out the money, so you might as well enjoy it.
OMG are you REALLY gonna drag out the old "Its not the OS, its the kernel" bullshit? Really? because by that logic windows is 100% bug free as well since no bug that I know of attacks the WinNT kernel but the stuff above it as well.
I'm sorry dude but that bullshit won't fly, a kernel with nothing else is fricking worthless and every. single. mainstream. distro all come with the SAME APPS over and over AND OVER so that shit ain't gonna fly. Firefox, Chromium, Gimp, Libre office, you'll find those on pretty much every mainstream desktop distro there is so if any of those are pwned then yes Virginia Linux is pwned.
Really? I can remove firefox from linux, I can't remove IE or most of the other "parts" that shipped with Windows. But surely even somebody as wise as you must be can tell the difference between Android and say Puppy Linux or Android's interface and KDE. If Google made a vulnerable OS based on the linux kernel (or if even Ubuntu did it), fine blame them, but then why not blame the BSDs for Apple's flaws with iOS and OS X?
As for Firefox, Chromium, Libre Office, etc having a vulnerability meaning linux has a vulnerability, well, then that would mean Windows does too as they run on Windows right? Or, is it possible that an application can be vulnerable without the OS being the source of the problem?
I'm not some zealot who professes linux is impenetrable or that it is the savour of everything, but at the same time, to call linux vulnerable because of what Google has tacked on top of it makes no sense. But hey, it's a free world, well most parts, so you are free to believe and spout whatever you want. But, we get it, you don't like linux, it's okay.
Sorry I lost faith in Linux after gnome 3. Windoes 8 might make me reconsider though :-)
There are alternatives to gnome 3. Xfce was pretty much like Gnome 2 and KDE could be made to look and work like just about anything. So, if gnome 3 pushed you away from linux, chances are you were already dissatisfied before gnome 3 and just needed an excuse. It's just too bad that Gnome 3 was released when it was. 3.8 is pretty usuable and the upcoming 3.10 looks better yet. But not to start a desktop war, as I stated, there are many alternatives, even if Gnome 3 isn't to one's liking, choose a different one.
While what you say has some truth, the part you leave out is that the attacks against Android were not against the linux kernel used by Android, but the Android specific parts. So, while while your numbers may be accurate as they quote Trendmicro, they misrepresent the reality. Just as a vulnerability in Firefox is not a linux vulnerability, even though Firefox ships with most linux distributions, likewise, a vulnerability found in the Google specific Android pieces does not make it a linux kernel vulnerability. If those pieces were tied directly into the kernel by the kernel developers, that would be different. But just like if I raise my Jeep and it becomes unstable when cornering, that doesn't mean it is a problem with all Jeeps, Google, modifying specific pieces of "linux" does not mean that the vulnerability is a problem with linux.
In your example, the writer is actually copying the photos into his book. That's one thing. Google, OTOH, isn't publishing a book containing copies of the photos. They're creating an index of photos that exist. To make it minimally useful, that index has to include a thumbnail or other depiction of the photo so viewers can tell whether that's the image they were looking for or not (a prerequisite for deciding whether they want to go to where that image is published or not). I'd say that if a writer wanted to do the same thing, publish an index of where all these works were with thumbnails of them, they ought to be able to do it under fair use just like Google does. But producing an art book with full-size high-quality reproductions of the photos wouldn't be producing an index.
Also, Google only creates an index of what the publisher has made publicly available. So what Google reproduces on their pages is by definition something the publisher isn't getting paid for when people just look at it. Google doesn't go behind paywalls or subscription barriers to find things, unless perhaps the publishers have explicitly coded their site to give Google that access for free and in that case IMO it's the publisher's look-out. To me it makes a difference in what's "fair" when you're handing out full-sized copies for free, no strings attached, to anybody who grabs one off the table vs. if they can only get them by coming into your shop and plopping down their money first.
So, based on your reasoning, I should be free to include small images of all of those pictures in my paper printed catalog because like Google, I would simply be creating an index and for it to be useful requires a thumbnail. Of course, there is ample case law specifically against that in printed material, so the real difference then is that if you do it on paper media, it is a copyright violation, but on-line it is not? That doesn't hold water, either, which is why Google says to file a DMCA complaint.
Now, why would they do that? Well, it is a hell of a lot cheaper to use content illegally and make the content holder tell you to take it down than it is to research what images you can use legally. The actual process to remove is pretty inexpensive, however. But, if you print all of those images in a book, the cost to remove infringing ones means you have to pull the book which already has the sunken print costs. Therefore, people research and license content up front.
In short, it has nothing to do with how the photos are being used. Both are using copyrighted content. In Google's case, it is cheaper to remove the infringing content once it is discovered to be infringing. No more or less. But DMCA is only one avenue to have the content removed. If enough content owners were impacted and could show that Google indiscriminately and knowingly took their images (say they took images from the MLB or the NFL), the copyright owners could skip the whole DMCA takedown notice and go straight to the courts for copyright infringement.
That brings it back to the gist of the article, though. For a small guy, whether an individual or even a small corporation, they don't have the wherewithal to take a company like Google to court and Google knows it, so they arrogantly and blatantly violate people's copyrights all the time.
Humans aren't losing out on content to machines. Yes, Google and others scrape content, but they aren't machines. They are corporations owned by other humans. All this article is about is small players not being able to compete against big corporations. That has almost always been the case. The fact that laws like the DMCA make it even harder for small players to compete just aggravate an already imbalanced system.
The middle ages had a feudal system, the modern world has a corporate system. In the middle ages, the king would only listen to those who filled his coffers. The same is true today with the government. Is there any wonder that small players have no voice, when an individual is only allowed to make a $2,600 campaign contribution, but with recent rulings a corporation can spend whatever it wants?
Contrary to popular belief, big corporations like government regulation because the cost to comply forces out smaller competition. Then, once the competition is gone, they lobby against the regulation and their bought and paid for representatives are all but too happy to comply.
Pope Paul VI said "If you want peace, work for justice." If he were alive today, he would probably add "If you want justice, get the money out of politics." Because, until you do, the US will continue to remain a plutocracy, where the wealthy class controls the government and the wealthiest class of all, now that the SCOTUS has determined them as persons under the law, are the mega corporations.
No, the U.S. is damn well not a democracy any more.
The U.S. was never a democracy. It is a Republic, but not a democracy.
So now the US needs Snowden for national security and to protect him from being tortured and coerced to give up secrets? Assuming if that threat is true, maybe if they had led with it instead of making him enemy number 1, this would have played out differently.
This tactic of bait and switch seems all to common with the US. Invade Iraq because of of their involvement with 9/11. Oops once it is known by the public that they weren't involved with 9/11, change the story. Invade Irag because of WMD. Oops, once it is known by the public that there weren't any WMDs, change the story. I've lost track of why the US invaded Irag.
Jump to Snowden. The cycle repeats. He's been branded a traitor, a spy, a terrorist... all to get him back and now that those have failed, we need to get him back to protect him in case he is captured.
So which is it? Does the US want him back because he is a bad guy or to protect him? Just spin the wheel and see. At least on Wheel of Fortune, you have the opportunity to win a trip to some nice resort. With the NSA and the US military complex, the only resort they offer is on the tip of Cuba.
Sure, it's unauthorized. But it's also protected under fair use.
It is protected under fair use if you record it for your personal use. However, MLB has already won a case where the court determined that streaming the recording to a different location was not protected as once it left the original domicile, and was released on the public internet, it was not longer personal use. Maybe someday the law will catch up with the technology, but currently personal use of a video recording means watching the video recording. It does not include streaming it.
From your post, it sounds like there is already an alternative "green" ammunition because the military is using it and that it is recognized that lead can be a problem because of the regulations surrounding shooting ranges.
Pure lead does not dissolve in water, you are correct. However, in the presence of water, lead will readily form other compounds such as lead acetate or lead sulfate or lead phosphate. While those and most lead compounds do not dissolve in pure water (pH 7.0), lead compounds will readily dissolve and leach if the water is even a bit acidic. Since most rain and soil is acidic, pure lead bullets will readily convert to a lead compound which will readily dissolve and leach into the soil and the water table. Now the rate of dissolve may not be great, but over time, those lead bullets, will leach more and more lead into the environment. Maybe not in your lifetime, but in somebody's. There is a reason we don't use lead pipes any more and we don't drink wine (an acidic drink) out of lead tankards.
So, while this may be a push by anti-gun advocates, that does not change the chemistry involved with lead nor the biological impact. We've know about the dangers of lead for a very long time. It's been banned from water fowl hunting for decades because of its propensity to contaminate the water, fish and birds, along with anything that might consume them. If there are viable alternatives, then what difference does it make what one uses for a bullet? A 150 grain bullet of a particular shape is going to have the same flight characteristics whether it is made from lead or not. Steel shot is just as effective at killing waterfowl as lead shot, so it stands to reason that it would be just as effective as lead shot for other uses, too.
The ship builders said the scientists were wrong about asbestos. History shows that the scientists were correct. The tobacco industry said the scientists were wrong about smoking. History shows that the scientists were correct. The auto industry said the scientists were wrong about lead based fuels. History shows that the scientists were correct. History shows that the detergent companies said the scientists were wrong about phosphates and the environment. History shows that the scientists were correct. The tourist industry said the scientists were wrong about sun exposure. History shows that the scientists were correct.
Who knows, though, the scientists can't always be right, can they? Maybe the NRA has found the one thing the scientists are lying about. But then there is that darn chemistry stuff. You can't just get around it. Maybe the NRA is right and the scientists are lying, but then there would have to be an awfully big conspiracy, centuries in the planning to fake the results we know about the chemistry of lead compounds.
So, even if this is politically motivated, it doesn't change the science and until somebody can refute the science, it's a safer bet to bet on the scientists than the NRA.
It appears we took down the NRA site that his summary linked to. Apparently the slashdot conservatives wanted to get the talking points from it before the slashdot liberal pointed out that lead is bad?
(yes, I know I'll be down-modded for this. let me have it)
But lead is bad. Surely even a slashdot conservative can recognize that.
How about if they want to use lead, they have to police their ammo and collect up the spent bullets. Slap a deposit fee on each lead bullet and give it back when the lead is returned. Obviously it won't be as simple as that, but the old deposit system worked well for pop bottles. Bullets made out of lead are not protected by the 2nd amendment (otherwise waterfowl hunters could use lead shot). Simply put, if you want to put lead in the environment then you should have to clean up the environment just like any other toxic waste producer is forced to do.