When you say "childless", I think you mean "child-free". Just because you want to spread the misery of parenting that you have gotten your shitty life stuck in doesn't mean that the rest of the world wants to and they aren't "less a child". They're FREE of children. Now, if only they could be free of YOUR shitty children that you foist upon society financially, socially, and every fucking time they act like wild dogs when the rest of us are trying to enjoy shopping, or dinner, or a movie.
It's your choice to have a child, the same way it's everyone else's choice not to have one. Don't' whine and bitch to us about how hard the consequences of your choices are to pay for and then get offended at us and act like a child throwing a tantrum when we call you out on the fact that you're bitching about something you caused for yourself.
Comments like this always come from non-parents. True ignorance. You have no fucking idea how much harder life is when raising children. Perhaps the world should just stop reproducing so "we people" won't disgust you.
Comments like you're always come from parents who fucked their lives up and have somehow convinced themselves that their mistake actually makes them saints and sages able to dispense advice to everyone else and trump those who did not fuck their lives up. I'm not a drug addict, but I can also comment fairly astutely on addiction and the wisdom of not putting yourself in a position to potentially become one.
You are not some hero for breeding. Trust me, if you don't breed, the world will still go on. This isn't 1640, where having a healthy child that lives to the age of twelve is rare and you need to spread your seed far and wide just to hope for a chance of humanity's continuation. And my having the sense and wisdom not to have children doesn't make me selfish or unqualified to discuss parenting. (For one thing, I *HAVE* parents, just like everyone else has).
Anyway, people like me know EXACTLY HOW FUCKING MUCH HARDER LIFE IS WHEN RAISING CHILDREN. That is why we don't do it. If you insist on doing it, then just fucking do it and shut the hell up. I didn't force you to squirt one out. I didn't even ask you to. If it's so difficult or you can't afford it, then don't do it. I've somehow managed to avoid breeding as has every single person I know who doesn't want kids.
Now, that said, the idea that it's disgusting that someone wants a corporation to provide a service that helps them do that parenting is kind of absurd. Letting that company control the content your children receive entirely blindly, without having any personal insight into just what is being filtered is absurd, but as long as you know what is being filtered out or opted in and you agree with it, then what's the difference between having a service to do that or coding something to do it on your own? Or watching over your child's shoulder?
It's such a shame that you have no control on the content coming into your house. They just jam those television, cable, internet, and radio signals and devices into your home and force you to use them against your will. It's all just so horrible. Won't someone think of the children? And the lazy parents?
I'm tired of assholes with children acting like choosing not to breed makes you selfish. How about you remember who is subsidizing your life and that of your children's and all the services you use the next time I'm paying my taxes and you're getting credits on yours? There is more to life than squirting out xeroxes of yourself. The species is no longer wavering on the point of extinction due to lack of population. Breeding is no longer a point of continuing our existence, but a selfish act of making another *you*, so you can feel better about yourself and foist your spawn on the rest of society all the while propagating this idiotic attitude that you are some sort of genius and saint for the toil and trouble of bringing up children that you yourself got yourself into.
I respect the few good parents out there who only have children when they can guarantee they can afford the expense and time for the child and then raise them to be independent, critical-thinking, well-rounded human beings rather than dipshits to continue on their own ignorance and retardation. Unfortunately, those parents are all too few. Instead, they're mostly just idiots like yourself you can't find the SHIFT key and see no meaning to life other than breeding defective copies of yourself.
I think this attitude of "we must find only age appropriate activities and content for our precious widdle childwen" is a fairly new concept. When I was a kid, there was no particular effort to review or control what was consumed nor what was provided. Yeah, there was Tipper Gore and all that shit, but when it came down to a parental level. We didn't even have special video games for kids, like we do today. Videogames were just games and you played them or you didn't.
I mean, really, I don't get what the big deal is. I was on BBSes when I was twelve, downloading porn. I turned out okay. I was reading Tommy Knockers and other Stephen King books when I was ten. I turned out okay. I was watching Poltergeist, when I was four. I turned out okay.
I don't even want to consider what my life would now be like if my online access was restricted to some sort of Disneyland BBS, my reading was limited to the Children's section of the library, and my movie/tv content was restricted to only those things with a Disney or WB logo on them.
That said, it's up to you if you want to control the content your kid consumes and as long as it in absolutely no way affects my rights and freedoms as an adult or puts up any sort of hurdle or verification requirement or anything else, it's fine with me. None of my business. As long as it is not something impacting everyone else, but is something entirely different and limited to only those opted in by their parents.
Oh - and I don't see why people need Google to do this for them. Google already offers you the option to make a customized search engine. Add all the "family friendly" watered down crap to it that you want and make google.com redirect to the custom engine on your local network. Problem solved.
Performing the same biological function as billions of humans before you doesn't give you any particular insight. I'm tired of this "I'm a saint and I'm a genius, because I squirted a kid out of my crotch" bullshit.
Networks using the remaining 20 minutes of their broadcast that isn't commercials to add in more commercials by way of promoting shows on their own networks ("Tonight, ABC local news interviews the cast from Lost!", filling it with 10 minutes of sports, then 5 minutes of "IS THE INTERNET KILLING LOCAL NEWS? COULD IT KILL YOUR FAMILY, NEXT?! FIND OUT WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TO SAVE YOUR FAMILY FROM THIS DEADLY PREDATOR, TONIGHT AT 11!", and then 5 minutes of some ridiciulous local human interest story and some weather. All while there are 24x7 news channels people could watch or - better - plenty of news online from better sources and with the ability to filter out the bullshit cruft as you like, online.
Local news is a fucking joke, because local news is a fucking joke. The reason that they're only expiring in the last fifteen years is that there are finally alternatives. It was still shit when it dominated - it's just that it was the only option we had before the late 90s.
I haven't paid much attention to memory usage on Firefox in a long time, until I saw this article, because while it still uses a lot, it stopped causing it to crash like it used to. Sure, it still crashes, but a couple times a month rather than every hour or two, like it did prior to 3.6. However, the last time I watched memory usage on Firefox (both on OSX and Windows; didn't have FF running on linux), I could just sit there and watch the memory utilization increase by about a quarter of a megabyte per second. I could watch it for hours and it would just keep climbing, indefinitely.
I probably use more tabs than the average person, but I don't think that necessarily explains why an idle browser should continue to increase in memory usage for hours after the last page or tab was opened. I also don't understand why there isn't a more sane way of handling tabs. Why does every tab need to remain in memory? If I have a group of tabs that I haven't switched to or touched in three hours (or days, for that matter), it seems maybe those could be written to disk and the tab would consist of just a simple screenshot for display in Panorama/Tab Candy mode?
I've seen the behavior on multiple systems, even without any extensions installed. Like I say, I can understand high memory usage if you have an obscene number of tabs open (though I think there should be better ways of handling those tabs than keeping them all in memory), but I don't think it explains why an otherwise idle browser should increase in memory usage hours after it was last touched.
This is yet another reason that the whole idea of forcing users to use their real names on Battle.net and Blizzard/Activision forums was a fucking awful one. And yeah, the problem with the passwords is that they point out that the passwords were hashed, but they don't mention whether they were salted. It seems obvious, but many people who bother to hash their password database don't bother to salt that hash.
That's all? 450mb? I just checked and the latest version of FF4x is currently using 2.1gb on my system.
Anyway, I thought Firefox didn't have a memory leak? It's just how firefox is *supposed* to behave. That's what they've been saying since 3.0. You can go back to countless threads on Slashdot rehashing the same thing. "Firefox is using insane amounts of memory"... "Shut up, dumb ass, you don't know anything! It's SUPPOSED to use a gig or two!"
I'm going to assume you're from outside the United States in a place with a radically different judicial system or that you are from the US and have, unfortunaly, been subjected to the wholly sub-standard civics education we receive, here.
If you are not convicted of a crime in the court of law, you are innocent. Period.
Granted, The USAPATRIOT Act overrides this by allowing the president to essentially call this guy an enemy combatant and disappear him to Gitmo for some torture with no representation, ever, but that's a subversion of the justice system. (And, frankly, I'm surprised this wasn't done by the government - I can only assume that this was because they wanted to use him to set an example more than they wanted to make him vanish).
All the professionals and experts who say it's not worth the risk aren't just making shit up to scare you
If you know many "experts" and "professionals" who are interviewed or testify or otherwise relied upon for conveying information on such topics to the world, I think you would recant this statement.
If it's that big of a problem, they wouldn't be allowing them on board AT ALL.
If it's so sure to cause significant problems, do you really think the FAA and whoever else would just rely on the fucking honor-system of the entire planet's worth of air-travelers?!
That guy might have a bomb, better finger his anus for wires! Go ahead and leave him his cell phone, though. I'm sure we can trust him to turn it completely off for the trip.
As Techdirt writes: 'Could you imagine how the press would react if, say, the FDA ran PSAs that were created and owned by McDonald's without making that clear to the public?
As opposed to the FACT that the heads of the FDA are always major industry players who have or will work for the same companies that they're overseeing? Like Monstanto people working in the FDA?
How about if the Treasury Department ran a PSA created and owned by Goldman Sachs?
As opposed to the FACT that the department itself is run by Goldman Sachs people (such as Henry Paulson) who pushed through to give Goldman Sachs billions of dollars during the whole manufactured "the world is going to end!" financial problems?
Well, chances are, NOBODY WOULD GIVE A SHIT. They didn't give a shit bout these facts. Nothing is being burned down and nobody is being chased with pitchforks. Nobody gives a shit and nobody will give a shit about the actions of the DHS until it is too late to legally voice your giving a shit about the actions of the DHS.
They've been lying about this for years. Let's use a little common sense to figure out the truth, here:
First, probably 90% of the people on every plane have one or more devices. Laptops, game devices, tablets, phones, and so on.
Second, there are several thousand flights in the US every single day.
Third, just because they say "turn off your devices" doesn't mean people do. In fact, I know people who intentionally don't turn their devices off, just as a personal point of spite.
Fourth, if these were a problem, planes would be fucking falling out of the sky. If you figure there are 300,000 to 500,000 people flying every single day, we should be seeing unexplained major airline catastrophes all the damn time.
Fifth - and finally - if this was even remotely a problem, they wouldn't have allowed devices all these years. In fact, if it was anything other than PROVEN to be safe, they wouldn't allow them. They would confiscate devices on entry and turn them off themselves or store them in some sort of Faraday cage kind of thing until you de-board.
Hell, maybe it's time to embrace these types of breaches. The more frequently this happens and the greater population it impacts, the less accountable people will have to be. I mean, if everyone has every piece of your data that is used for anything that you do, then there will never be any way to reasonably affix responsibility to you.
On the other hand, they'll just solve it by finally cracking down and imposing some sort of draconian National ID stuff both on and offline and these activities will just serve as justification for finally sweeping the land with the new "solution".
We tend to think of other countries as having much more fair and rational copyright practices favoring information and individuals, but it sounds like that can often be anything of the case. I can only assume that there is also a lot of overlap between "people who do/did/will work for content creators" and "politicians who are having the public pay a tax to those people every time they buy some form of media that can store data".
That doesn't make any sense. Why do you need to be "compensated" for "fair use"? It's FAIR USE. That's the entire point. Otherwise it' be called "paying a fee to license content for use". I guess there better be a similar tax on all printers, ink, paper, typewriters, and word processing programs, because they may use a quote or a reference in some way and the original content owners need to be compensated for the fair use.
Unfortunately, we'll continue to be stuck playing videogames that are never developed with any "maturity" beyond the age of 16 and the industry and politicians treat it as something for five year olds that have to be nerfed.
Also, I haven't read this particular article (it's slashdot, afterall), but I'm sure that number takes into consideration all of the casual gamers, which throw the numbers of ENORMOUSLY, becuase then the average gamer is a post-menopausal female who plays angry birds and facebook games.
Others, much smarter than myself, have often repeated that "College is where boys go to drink, girls go to find husbands, and everyone goes to prolong their childhood another four years".
I am put off by people who clearly do have an anti-intellectual attitude and refer to people who are smart or desire to be smart or are working at being smart as "elitist". However, I can sometimes partially identify with that sentiment, when some asshole is going around saying things like "well, if you feel that you don't get enough out of college to justify the time and expense, then you are being anti-intellectual". I call that being disingenuous.
As someone who did not go to college (in fact, I did not even finish high school, but was fortunate enough to build myself a successful career which was well under way before I turned twenty), I admit that I have a bit of that "fuck institutional academia" in me as well as a little bit of what George Carlin (who dropped out in the 9th grade, just like I did) commented on as "when you drop out in the ninth grade, you spend the rest of your life proving yourself".
I don't personally have anything against people who go to college, but I don't see it as an absolute necessity. At best, I see it as a road-block. Something you must endure, to get where you need to go. Even if you know more going in than the instructors do. Even if you learn at a faster pace than they're willing to teach. You need to pay six figures and four years to get that little piece of paper, so businesses will give you a look. You need to prove that you are willing to be part of the machine, so that you can be part of the machine.
Some exceptions are made, of course. College is absolutely necessary if you're a lawyer or doctor. But is it really necessary, if you're going to be a history expert or journalist or historian or programmer?
I see college as generally a path made available for those who kind of want to do something, but don't know how to do it or don't have the passion to do it themselves. They need someone to lead the way and guide them along every step of it. Many of them are ultimately just looking for something to pay the bills. They're told that accounting is a well paying field, so they go into accounting. Maybe a decision they make in the last few months, before attending.
But then there are others. Those of us who know what we want to do. Have always known it. Have spent years learning about it on our own. Practicing it. Seeking out knowledge and experience and mentors. Those who have a deep passion for what they want to do and for whom college is almost entirely a grin-and-bear it situation, just to get an official stamp on a degree, so they can move on.
I sincerely feel for the people who went to college and came out in massive debt. Often they're doing the same thing I'm doing. Often along side me. The only difference between them and myself is that one of us went to college and one didn't. Oh, and one of us is still paying off a student loan in our 30s and the other has been earning clear and free of any debt their entire adult life.
I'm fortunate and not the most common example around, I admit. But it's possible and there are plenty of examples who have done the same and still can. It's just a matter of what the individual wants. I'm all bout your passion, experience, and capability (or at least, capacity to learn). How you arrived there -- through institutional education or on your own isn't terribly important, to me.
The physical Apple Stores usually only carry stock configurations and sometimes not all of those and if I'm going to have to order something at the physical store to be shipped and picked up there, I might as well order it online and have it shipped *home*. Plus, I hate malls.
Also, Apple has a website that makes it easy for companies to let employees apply employee discounts which I've found preferable over the years to dealing with it in person (though the Apple employees have never seemed bothered by it).
This kind of shit really has me concerned for the direction browsing is going in, in general. I just want a browser that is efficient and does lots of cool things that make the browsing experience more productive. I don't want social-fucking-everything, branded tabs, branded browsing applications, a dedicated interface for every dipshit hipster social service and integration with a fucking smart-phone and mood ring. Just a fucking browser.
Slashdot Mirror
When you say "childless", I think you mean "child-free". Just because you want to spread the misery of parenting that you have gotten your shitty life stuck in doesn't mean that the rest of the world wants to and they aren't "less a child". They're FREE of children. Now, if only they could be free of YOUR shitty children that you foist upon society financially, socially, and every fucking time they act like wild dogs when the rest of us are trying to enjoy shopping, or dinner, or a movie.
It's your choice to have a child, the same way it's everyone else's choice not to have one. Don't' whine and bitch to us about how hard the consequences of your choices are to pay for and then get offended at us and act like a child throwing a tantrum when we call you out on the fact that you're bitching about something you caused for yourself.
Comments like this always come from non-parents. True ignorance. You have no fucking idea how much harder life is when raising children. Perhaps the world should just stop reproducing so "we people" won't disgust you.
Comments like you're always come from parents who fucked their lives up and have somehow convinced themselves that their mistake actually makes them saints and sages able to dispense advice to everyone else and trump those who did not fuck their lives up. I'm not a drug addict, but I can also comment fairly astutely on addiction and the wisdom of not putting yourself in a position to potentially become one.
You are not some hero for breeding. Trust me, if you don't breed, the world will still go on. This isn't 1640, where having a healthy child that lives to the age of twelve is rare and you need to spread your seed far and wide just to hope for a chance of humanity's continuation. And my having the sense and wisdom not to have children doesn't make me selfish or unqualified to discuss parenting. (For one thing, I *HAVE* parents, just like everyone else has).
Anyway, people like me know EXACTLY HOW FUCKING MUCH HARDER LIFE IS WHEN RAISING CHILDREN. That is why we don't do it. If you insist on doing it, then just fucking do it and shut the hell up. I didn't force you to squirt one out. I didn't even ask you to. If it's so difficult or you can't afford it, then don't do it. I've somehow managed to avoid breeding as has every single person I know who doesn't want kids.
Now, that said, the idea that it's disgusting that someone wants a corporation to provide a service that helps them do that parenting is kind of absurd. Letting that company control the content your children receive entirely blindly, without having any personal insight into just what is being filtered is absurd, but as long as you know what is being filtered out or opted in and you agree with it, then what's the difference between having a service to do that or coding something to do it on your own? Or watching over your child's shoulder?
It's such a shame that you have no control on the content coming into your house. They just jam those television, cable, internet, and radio signals and devices into your home and force you to use them against your will. It's all just so horrible. Won't someone think of the children? And the lazy parents?
I'm tired of assholes with children acting like choosing not to breed makes you selfish. How about you remember who is subsidizing your life and that of your children's and all the services you use the next time I'm paying my taxes and you're getting credits on yours? There is more to life than squirting out xeroxes of yourself. The species is no longer wavering on the point of extinction due to lack of population. Breeding is no longer a point of continuing our existence, but a selfish act of making another *you*, so you can feel better about yourself and foist your spawn on the rest of society all the while propagating this idiotic attitude that you are some sort of genius and saint for the toil and trouble of bringing up children that you yourself got yourself into.
I respect the few good parents out there who only have children when they can guarantee they can afford the expense and time for the child and then raise them to be independent, critical-thinking, well-rounded human beings rather than dipshits to continue on their own ignorance and retardation. Unfortunately, those parents are all too few. Instead, they're mostly just idiots like yourself you can't find the SHIFT key and see no meaning to life other than breeding defective copies of yourself.
I think this attitude of "we must find only age appropriate activities and content for our precious widdle childwen" is a fairly new concept. When I was a kid, there was no particular effort to review or control what was consumed nor what was provided. Yeah, there was Tipper Gore and all that shit, but when it came down to a parental level. We didn't even have special video games for kids, like we do today. Videogames were just games and you played them or you didn't.
I mean, really, I don't get what the big deal is. I was on BBSes when I was twelve, downloading porn. I turned out okay. I was reading Tommy Knockers and other Stephen King books when I was ten. I turned out okay. I was watching Poltergeist, when I was four. I turned out okay.
I don't even want to consider what my life would now be like if my online access was restricted to some sort of Disneyland BBS, my reading was limited to the Children's section of the library, and my movie/tv content was restricted to only those things with a Disney or WB logo on them.
That said, it's up to you if you want to control the content your kid consumes and as long as it in absolutely no way affects my rights and freedoms as an adult or puts up any sort of hurdle or verification requirement or anything else, it's fine with me. None of my business. As long as it is not something impacting everyone else, but is something entirely different and limited to only those opted in by their parents.
Oh - and I don't see why people need Google to do this for them. Google already offers you the option to make a customized search engine. Add all the "family friendly" watered down crap to it that you want and make google.com redirect to the custom engine on your local network. Problem solved.
Performing the same biological function as billions of humans before you doesn't give you any particular insight. I'm tired of this "I'm a saint and I'm a genius, because I squirted a kid out of my crotch" bullshit.
Networks using the remaining 20 minutes of their broadcast that isn't commercials to add in more commercials by way of promoting shows on their own networks ("Tonight, ABC local news interviews the cast from Lost!", filling it with 10 minutes of sports, then 5 minutes of "IS THE INTERNET KILLING LOCAL NEWS? COULD IT KILL YOUR FAMILY, NEXT?! FIND OUT WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TO SAVE YOUR FAMILY FROM THIS DEADLY PREDATOR, TONIGHT AT 11!", and then 5 minutes of some ridiciulous local human interest story and some weather. All while there are 24x7 news channels people could watch or - better - plenty of news online from better sources and with the ability to filter out the bullshit cruft as you like, online.
Local news is a fucking joke, because local news is a fucking joke. The reason that they're only expiring in the last fifteen years is that there are finally alternatives. It was still shit when it dominated - it's just that it was the only option we had before the late 90s.
I haven't paid much attention to memory usage on Firefox in a long time, until I saw this article, because while it still uses a lot, it stopped causing it to crash like it used to. Sure, it still crashes, but a couple times a month rather than every hour or two, like it did prior to 3.6. However, the last time I watched memory usage on Firefox (both on OSX and Windows; didn't have FF running on linux), I could just sit there and watch the memory utilization increase by about a quarter of a megabyte per second. I could watch it for hours and it would just keep climbing, indefinitely.
I probably use more tabs than the average person, but I don't think that necessarily explains why an idle browser should continue to increase in memory usage for hours after the last page or tab was opened. I also don't understand why there isn't a more sane way of handling tabs. Why does every tab need to remain in memory? If I have a group of tabs that I haven't switched to or touched in three hours (or days, for that matter), it seems maybe those could be written to disk and the tab would consist of just a simple screenshot for display in Panorama/Tab Candy mode?
I've seen the behavior on multiple systems, even without any extensions installed. Like I say, I can understand high memory usage if you have an obscene number of tabs open (though I think there should be better ways of handling those tabs than keeping them all in memory), but I don't think it explains why an otherwise idle browser should increase in memory usage hours after it was last touched.
This is yet another reason that the whole idea of forcing users to use their real names on Battle.net and Blizzard/Activision forums was a fucking awful one. And yeah, the problem with the passwords is that they point out that the passwords were hashed, but they don't mention whether they were salted. It seems obvious, but many people who bother to hash their password database don't bother to salt that hash.
That's all? 450mb? I just checked and the latest version of FF4x is currently using 2.1gb on my system.
Anyway, I thought Firefox didn't have a memory leak? It's just how firefox is *supposed* to behave. That's what they've been saying since 3.0. You can go back to countless threads on Slashdot rehashing the same thing. "Firefox is using insane amounts of memory"... "Shut up, dumb ass, you don't know anything! It's SUPPOSED to use a gig or two!"
I'm going to assume you're from outside the United States in a place with a radically different judicial system or that you are from the US and have, unfortunaly, been subjected to the wholly sub-standard civics education we receive, here.
If you are not convicted of a crime in the court of law, you are innocent. Period.
Granted, The USAPATRIOT Act overrides this by allowing the president to essentially call this guy an enemy combatant and disappear him to Gitmo for some torture with no representation, ever, but that's a subversion of the justice system. (And, frankly, I'm surprised this wasn't done by the government - I can only assume that this was because they wanted to use him to set an example more than they wanted to make him vanish).
All the professionals and experts who say it's not worth the risk aren't just making shit up to scare you
If you know many "experts" and "professionals" who are interviewed or testify or otherwise relied upon for conveying information on such topics to the world, I think you would recant this statement.
cell phones are weapons that are extremely effective at disrupting.
Bingo.
Though, of course, I don't think that's how you meant it.
Everyone has a laptop or portable gaming device or a cell phone.
Classify such devices as weapons.
Everyone has a weapon.
Treat them accordingly.
If it's that big of a problem, they wouldn't be allowing them on board AT ALL.
If it's so sure to cause significant problems, do you really think the FAA and whoever else would just rely on the fucking honor-system of the entire planet's worth of air-travelers?!
That guy might have a bomb, better finger his anus for wires! Go ahead and leave him his cell phone, though. I'm sure we can trust him to turn it completely off for the trip.
As Techdirt writes: 'Could you imagine how the press would react if, say, the FDA ran PSAs that were created and owned by McDonald's without making that clear to the public?
As opposed to the FACT that the heads of the FDA are always major industry players who have or will work for the same companies that they're overseeing? Like Monstanto people working in the FDA?
How about if the Treasury Department ran a PSA created and owned by Goldman Sachs?
As opposed to the FACT that the department itself is run by Goldman Sachs people (such as Henry Paulson) who pushed through to give Goldman Sachs billions of dollars during the whole manufactured "the world is going to end!" financial problems?
Well, chances are, NOBODY WOULD GIVE A SHIT. They didn't give a shit bout these facts. Nothing is being burned down and nobody is being chased with pitchforks. Nobody gives a shit and nobody will give a shit about the actions of the DHS until it is too late to legally voice your giving a shit about the actions of the DHS.
They've been lying about this for years. Let's use a little common sense to figure out the truth, here:
First, probably 90% of the people on every plane have one or more devices. Laptops, game devices, tablets, phones, and so on.
Second, there are several thousand flights in the US every single day.
Third, just because they say "turn off your devices" doesn't mean people do. In fact, I know people who intentionally don't turn their devices off, just as a personal point of spite.
Fourth, if these were a problem, planes would be fucking falling out of the sky. If you figure there are 300,000 to 500,000 people flying every single day, we should be seeing unexplained major airline catastrophes all the damn time.
Fifth - and finally - if this was even remotely a problem, they wouldn't have allowed devices all these years. In fact, if it was anything other than PROVEN to be safe, they wouldn't allow them. They would confiscate devices on entry and turn them off themselves or store them in some sort of Faraday cage kind of thing until you de-board.
Hell, maybe it's time to embrace these types of breaches. The more frequently this happens and the greater population it impacts, the less accountable people will have to be. I mean, if everyone has every piece of your data that is used for anything that you do, then there will never be any way to reasonably affix responsibility to you.
On the other hand, they'll just solve it by finally cracking down and imposing some sort of draconian National ID stuff both on and offline and these activities will just serve as justification for finally sweeping the land with the new "solution".
Thanks for the clarification!
We tend to think of other countries as having much more fair and rational copyright practices favoring information and individuals, but it sounds like that can often be anything of the case. I can only assume that there is also a lot of overlap between "people who do/did/will work for content creators" and "politicians who are having the public pay a tax to those people every time they buy some form of media that can store data".
That doesn't make any sense. Why do you need to be "compensated" for "fair use"? It's FAIR USE. That's the entire point. Otherwise it' be called "paying a fee to license content for use". I guess there better be a similar tax on all printers, ink, paper, typewriters, and word processing programs, because they may use a quote or a reference in some way and the original content owners need to be compensated for the fair use.
Unfortunately, we'll continue to be stuck playing videogames that are never developed with any "maturity" beyond the age of 16 and the industry and politicians treat it as something for five year olds that have to be nerfed.
Also, I haven't read this particular article (it's slashdot, afterall), but I'm sure that number takes into consideration all of the casual gamers, which throw the numbers of ENORMOUSLY, becuase then the average gamer is a post-menopausal female who plays angry birds and facebook games.
Others, much smarter than myself, have often repeated that "College is where boys go to drink, girls go to find husbands, and everyone goes to prolong their childhood another four years".
I am put off by people who clearly do have an anti-intellectual attitude and refer to people who are smart or desire to be smart or are working at being smart as "elitist". However, I can sometimes partially identify with that sentiment, when some asshole is going around saying things like "well, if you feel that you don't get enough out of college to justify the time and expense, then you are being anti-intellectual". I call that being disingenuous.
As someone who did not go to college (in fact, I did not even finish high school, but was fortunate enough to build myself a successful career which was well under way before I turned twenty), I admit that I have a bit of that "fuck institutional academia" in me as well as a little bit of what George Carlin (who dropped out in the 9th grade, just like I did) commented on as "when you drop out in the ninth grade, you spend the rest of your life proving yourself".
I don't personally have anything against people who go to college, but I don't see it as an absolute necessity. At best, I see it as a road-block. Something you must endure, to get where you need to go. Even if you know more going in than the instructors do. Even if you learn at a faster pace than they're willing to teach. You need to pay six figures and four years to get that little piece of paper, so businesses will give you a look. You need to prove that you are willing to be part of the machine, so that you can be part of the machine.
Some exceptions are made, of course. College is absolutely necessary if you're a lawyer or doctor. But is it really necessary, if you're going to be a history expert or journalist or historian or programmer?
I see college as generally a path made available for those who kind of want to do something, but don't know how to do it or don't have the passion to do it themselves. They need someone to lead the way and guide them along every step of it. Many of them are ultimately just looking for something to pay the bills. They're told that accounting is a well paying field, so they go into accounting. Maybe a decision they make in the last few months, before attending.
But then there are others. Those of us who know what we want to do. Have always known it. Have spent years learning about it on our own. Practicing it. Seeking out knowledge and experience and mentors. Those who have a deep passion for what they want to do and for whom college is almost entirely a grin-and-bear it situation, just to get an official stamp on a degree, so they can move on.
I sincerely feel for the people who went to college and came out in massive debt. Often they're doing the same thing I'm doing. Often along side me. The only difference between them and myself is that one of us went to college and one didn't. Oh, and one of us is still paying off a student loan in our 30s and the other has been earning clear and free of any debt their entire adult life.
I'm fortunate and not the most common example around, I admit. But it's possible and there are plenty of examples who have done the same and still can. It's just a matter of what the individual wants. I'm all bout your passion, experience, and capability (or at least, capacity to learn). How you arrived there -- through institutional education or on your own isn't terribly important, to me.
The physical Apple Stores usually only carry stock configurations and sometimes not all of those and if I'm going to have to order something at the physical store to be shipped and picked up there, I might as well order it online and have it shipped *home*. Plus, I hate malls.
Also, Apple has a website that makes it easy for companies to let employees apply employee discounts which I've found preferable over the years to dealing with it in person (though the Apple employees have never seemed bothered by it).
I stupidly walked into that. :)
This kind of shit really has me concerned for the direction browsing is going in, in general. I just want a browser that is efficient and does lots of cool things that make the browsing experience more productive. I don't want social-fucking-everything, branded tabs, branded browsing applications, a dedicated interface for every dipshit hipster social service and integration with a fucking smart-phone and mood ring. Just a fucking browser.