Well, Apple does have one advantage over Roku: YouTube. I love my Roku box, but I'd love it a bit more if they finally finished the darned YouTube channel they've been promising for months.
Yes, of course I can. Read the history section of the.com wikipedia entry, then go on to read the history of ARPA, ICANN, and so forth. You might also search around on the network names file, the Great Renaming, Jon Postel and any useful terms you come across in reading all these histories. You'll note, if you're the least bit observant, how all of this history starts in and relates to the United States, when the gTLDs were created (1985; I'll save you looking it up) and why, and so forth.You might note, for example, that ICANN was founded in 1998 by the US government, which felt that by then the US government shouldn't be directly running a system becoming increasingly internationalized. (Note the dates, 1985 and 1998, and consider them carefully.) Then you can come to your own conclusions.
None of this is to say that it should be this way; merely that it is this way. And that it will be this way until there is sufficient cause for it to change.
You'll pardon me, I hope, but your question sounds like a kid asking someone to substantiate history that that person witnessed but that happened before the kid was cognizant of world events. Next time, try looking around first. It's enlightening.
Sadly, your humble opinion is contradictory to the facts. The 3-letter TLDs are in fact US-specific, and always have been. This is a design flaw in the original spec (no consideration of other countries, let alone other worlds), along with 32-bit addressing for IP and everything about SMTP and a whole host of other older protocols that were not intended for what they're now being used for. The problem is that no one wants to do another Great Renaming (heck, they don't even want to change their addresses, which is part of why IPv6 is slow-rolling), and all that that implies. If people were willing to rename everything, then we could solve the problem by reworking DNS to be (a) peer-to-peer and (b) aware of multiple jurisdictions, languages and alphabets by design, rather than having it tacked on to an existing system. Until that happens, though, the 3-letter TLDs are US-specific. We're just not that choosy about who can use them.
So what you are saying is that you arrogate to yourself and those who share your preferences the privilege of determining how public space may be used, and of enforcing that determination. Judge, jury and executioner all in one. Yet another would-be tyrant self-identifies.
Disclaimer: I worked at GM during the time the Volt was being designed and prototyped. But not in engineering: I don't claim special insight from that.
You are beating that strawman good. That's not what I said. The Volt was designed for political reasons (CAFE standards, looking good with environmentalists, etc), more than as an engineering challenge (that part was what EV-1 was for). Regardless of what Republicans may claim or not claim, it is nonetheless true that the reasons for the Volt were far more political than engineering or market driven.
Capitalism has nothing to do with public education in the US. It's a social-bureaucratic system with curriculum preferences driven by California and Texas.
1. Life of Fred
2. Singapore
3. If you're going to go the traditional route, at least get people who know the subject and teach them to teach, instead of putting people who don't know the subject in front of the kids. Then the textbooks would matter less anyway.
Almost all law enforcement was private. Outside of a small number of elected officials and their deputies, Law was generally enforced (in the Anglosphere anyway) by citizens. Organized government controlled police forces are a relatively recent phenomenon.
Clouds are, in a sense, all about using tight control to gain efficiency. Control requires centralization. But this introduces failure modes that are catastrophic: rather than degrading performance overall or seeing point failures, everything is perfect until everything is gone. Resiliency — the ability to survive failures and still function to some degree — requires decentralization both of infrastructure and of decision making power. So attempts to become more efficient, past a certain point, inevitably result in the destruction of the system.
This is not just an IT observation. The same thing happens with biodiversity (fewer species means greater risk that a key part of a food chain will collapse and take the entire chain with it), the economy (ever notice how failures are getting bigger as government steps in more to prevent failures?), and any other complex system. Once a system is too big for a single human mind — and specifically the one in charge of the system — to contain its complexity and understand its failure modes, failure becomes inevitable. The fewer people allowed to understand and make decisions about the system, the more catastrophic the failures when they occur. The more complex the system, the more likely it is for the failures to occur. Which is to say, any complex system is at increased risk of catastrophic failure as it grows in complexity and as it becomes more centralized. Combine the two, and you're just waiting for the disaster to happen.
Well, the real problem is that you can never eliminate human error. When combined with the difficulties and costs of maintaining a proper test environment (full duplicate of production, essentially), the odds of something going wrong are always going to be non-zero. Then when you add the interconnectivity that clouds require on top of that, the odds that that something that goes wrong will make everything go wrong all at once becomes non-zero as well. So failure modes for well-designed cloud services tend to be fewer, but more catastrophic, than for non-cloud environments.
Well, popular votes mean nothing in and of themselves, of course. Look at Clinton, who (IIRC) never won a popular vote majority. What matters is purely and simply the EC vote. Now, if we could manage to throw it to the House, that would be interesting.
It seems to me that about 40% of the electorate can very or reasonably comfortably vote D every time, and about 40% can reasonably or very comfortably vote R every time. For the 20% who cannot do either, the relentless propagandizing generally drives them to vote overwhelmingly for the major party candidate they despise least. If that 20% were to vote consistently third party - and as you noted, not necessarily even for the same third party - it would be enough to compel one or both parties to change their approach in an attempt to woo those voters. Since they don't, the parties are able to get their wins without serious challenges to the electoral narrative that's prevailed for pretty much my entire life.
In other words, if you want the political system to be better, and think that voting for a major party candidate will change things: sucker!
UK system is fundamentally, structurally different than US. It is parliamentary, where ours is not. It has far more localized elections than in the US generally. And so forth. So how does that differ from my point that if you want to get rid of the two party system in the US, you have to change the voting or the underlying structure? I believe that, in other words, you've demonstrated my point while voicing it as a contradiction.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Apple does have one advantage over Roku: YouTube. I love my Roku box, but I'd love it a bit more if they finally finished the darned YouTube channel they've been promising for months.
No, but you never really know what's on the other end of a link until you click it.
2. Smaller screen than my desktop monitor. Not as many buttons as a Galaxy Tab. Lame.
3. (drooling) You had me at "Apple".
Didn't you just restate the point of what you were quoting, while using a tone that seems to imply that he didn't get it?
Perhaps I would be less surprised if you used a car analogy...
It's up, up, right, right, left, right, left, right, button 1
None of this is to say that it should be this way; merely that it is this way. And that it will be this way until there is sufficient cause for it to change.
You'll pardon me, I hope, but your question sounds like a kid asking someone to substantiate history that that person witnessed but that happened before the kid was cognizant of world events. Next time, try looking around first. It's enlightening.
Sadly, your humble opinion is contradictory to the facts. The 3-letter TLDs are in fact US-specific, and always have been. This is a design flaw in the original spec (no consideration of other countries, let alone other worlds), along with 32-bit addressing for IP and everything about SMTP and a whole host of other older protocols that were not intended for what they're now being used for. The problem is that no one wants to do another Great Renaming (heck, they don't even want to change their addresses, which is part of why IPv6 is slow-rolling), and all that that implies. If people were willing to rename everything, then we could solve the problem by reworking DNS to be (a) peer-to-peer and (b) aware of multiple jurisdictions, languages and alphabets by design, rather than having it tacked on to an existing system. Until that happens, though, the 3-letter TLDs are US-specific. We're just not that choosy about who can use them.
So what you are saying is that you arrogate to yourself and those who share your preferences the privilege of determining how public space may be used, and of enforcing that determination. Judge, jury and executioner all in one. Yet another would-be tyrant self-identifies.
I guess that explains why my wife has rules about how much chili powder and cayenne I'm allowed to use in the chili.
Hell, we got a whole President that way. More than once, really. Damn. Now that I think on it, probably the majority of the time.
You are beating that strawman good. That's not what I said. The Volt was designed for political reasons (CAFE standards, looking good with environmentalists, etc), more than as an engineering challenge (that part was what EV-1 was for). Regardless of what Republicans may claim or not claim, it is nonetheless true that the reasons for the Volt were far more political than engineering or market driven.
Capitalism has nothing to do with public education in the US. It's a social-bureaucratic system with curriculum preferences driven by California and Texas.
1. Life of Fred 2. Singapore 3. If you're going to go the traditional route, at least get people who know the subject and teach them to teach, instead of putting people who don't know the subject in front of the kids. Then the textbooks would matter less anyway.
Almost all law enforcement was private. Outside of a small number of elected officials and their deputies, Law was generally enforced (in the Anglosphere anyway) by citizens. Organized government controlled police forces are a relatively recent phenomenon.
When you make a product for political reasons, not because there's a market, and then subject it to the market, it tends not to do well. Huh.
OK, that made me laugh out loud.
This is not just an IT observation. The same thing happens with biodiversity (fewer species means greater risk that a key part of a food chain will collapse and take the entire chain with it), the economy (ever notice how failures are getting bigger as government steps in more to prevent failures?), and any other complex system. Once a system is too big for a single human mind — and specifically the one in charge of the system — to contain its complexity and understand its failure modes, failure becomes inevitable. The fewer people allowed to understand and make decisions about the system, the more catastrophic the failures when they occur. The more complex the system, the more likely it is for the failures to occur. Which is to say, any complex system is at increased risk of catastrophic failure as it grows in complexity and as it becomes more centralized. Combine the two, and you're just waiting for the disaster to happen.
Well, the real problem is that you can never eliminate human error. When combined with the difficulties and costs of maintaining a proper test environment (full duplicate of production, essentially), the odds of something going wrong are always going to be non-zero. Then when you add the interconnectivity that clouds require on top of that, the odds that that something that goes wrong will make everything go wrong all at once becomes non-zero as well. So failure modes for well-designed cloud services tend to be fewer, but more catastrophic, than for non-cloud environments.
It seems to me that about 40% of the electorate can very or reasonably comfortably vote D every time, and about 40% can reasonably or very comfortably vote R every time. For the 20% who cannot do either, the relentless propagandizing generally drives them to vote overwhelmingly for the major party candidate they despise least. If that 20% were to vote consistently third party - and as you noted, not necessarily even for the same third party - it would be enough to compel one or both parties to change their approach in an attempt to woo those voters. Since they don't, the parties are able to get their wins without serious challenges to the electoral narrative that's prevailed for pretty much my entire life.
In other words, if you want the political system to be better, and think that voting for a major party candidate will change things: sucker!
OK, that was funny.
PayPal is owned by eBay. I think you need some actual citations, there, buddy.
Ah, Twilight, a sweet romance about the choice between and bestiality and necrophilia.
UK system is fundamentally, structurally different than US. It is parliamentary, where ours is not. It has far more localized elections than in the US generally. And so forth. So how does that differ from my point that if you want to get rid of the two party system in the US, you have to change the voting or the underlying structure? I believe that, in other words, you've demonstrated my point while voicing it as a contradiction.
Democratic field is worse