So are you saying that slavery was a good idea, or are you saying that based on an oversight of our founding fathers, any actions by Lincoln should have been preceded by an appropriate constitutional amendment that would have had to be approved by the majority of the states? Or are you saying something else entirely?
For someone like Lincoln to have stood idly by on something as important as slavery as well as secession, claiming that his hands were tied by something written 90 years earlier would have been cowardly and just plain wrong. There are times when sticking with precedent is right, and there are times for taking action to establish new precedent. That's why we have leaders.
Sometimes it goes horribly wrong, i.e. with our ridiculous war in Iraq and human rights violations in Gitmo, but when you've got someone intelligent and experienced in charge, doing the right thing will have more benefits than liabilities in the long run.
To even insinuate that Lincoln's exercise of federal force was a bad thing in any sense of the word is wrong in many, many ways. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but throwing him in with "the other guys" indicates to me that you rue the change from pure Jeffersonian governance.
The truth is, one size does not fit all. That's what the people on the conservative side of the spectrum hate about central government. But to suggest that the same logic doesn't apply to the constitution itself--that it should never be re-interpreted when an out of context problem comes up--is simply idiocy.
The iPad is a *new* device, and anything published on it is available there in addition to all the other devices and media through which publication was previously possible. How could this be a censorship issue worthy of government attention?
Is it censorship? In the broadest sense, yes. But do I want the federal gov't meddling with this? Any federal gov't? It sets a scary precedent.
Apparently, it's not that hard to take away: "ID please?"
I find your comment thought-provoking, but what it led me to is the thought that maybe, just maybe, the use of a cell phone--which uses FCC-controlled air waves--is not a god given right. I understand the civil libertarian's stance, but we still have the means of anonymous communication we did at the time the constitution was written: in-person, postal mail (one end is anonymous, at least), and oh, I don't know, hidden notes taped to park benches?
So the question is, if anonymous speech is indeed a right, does that right extend to all media?
Like many other posters, I'm dubious as to the successful results of this new law, but in many cases, what's being attempted is to add extra hurdles that will make it less likely that someone is going to do nefarious things. Does it stop people like Tim McVey from buying a ton of fertilizer and making a bomb? Does it stop drug dealers from getting hand guns? No, I guess it doesn't stop all of it. But I think it does stop some of it. Maybe there'd have been two dozen McVeys without the fertilizer tracking laws.
I'm not sure where I stand on this particular law, having said all that; I could probably make as many arguments for it as against it. But what I'm pretty sure that I don't feel that anonymous communication over a spectrum that is federally regulated and run by corporations who are even more evil than the government is a god given right.
You want anonymous? Buy some walkie talkies that use unregulated airspace, set up your own network of repeaters, and put a scrambler/descrambler at both ends. Too expensive? Talk to your friends in person. Need to reach them on cell phone? Maybe it's OK to register.
I hate "I agree" posts, but... I totally agree. Breaking Bad is one of the best shows on TV. Between that and Mad Men, AMC has really started to show some great innovation in TV writing and production.
One might say he has learned. All the way to the bank. Whether someone has won or lost really depends on your definitions for those terms.
It seems to me that the only major cell phone hardware/software vendor that's "lost" is Palm, and even their contributions may find a new post-fire-sale life in the loving arms of HP.
Well, I think the GP poster was referring to android fanbois, which you're calling reverse fanbois or apple hatebois. They're no different from apple fanbois, who are windows mobile and android hatebois. And of course, they'd all be the same as winmob fanbois, except I'm not sure there are any.
But my point is that the fanboi/hateboi set are a relatively small number, but they're vocal and annoying. There are probably more fanboi- and hateboi-haters than actual fanbois and hatebois out there. But it just takes one troll to get a lot of people spinning their wheels.
or better yet, 3rd parties'. There may be more than one 3rd party.
And this is more stylistic than grammatical, but one usually spells out numbers up to and including ten, so it should be "third parties'", or "their 25th attempt to fix the problem failed, too".
Just saying, if you're going to be pedantic, do it right.
Are we to assume that scalpers don't/can't hire people to stand in line with pre-paid debit cards?
You're absolutely right. As such, this story could be summed up as: Breaking news! Apple does something mildly inconvenient to a handful of people and people who hate Apple anyway freak out and use it as an excuse to post vitriolic diatribe throughout the Internets!
I mean, really, who carries $500 in cash anymore? Could they have done a better job with this to avoid PR flack? Yes. Is it silly and annoying to refuse cash? Yes. Why did they do it? They probably found that there were scenarios where one person sent out dozens of people with a given card (i.e. copies of their personal card, or a business card) and had them buy out stock.
It's certainly possible that this was just a pure and simple bone-headed maneuver, but it's equally likely, in my book, that it was a decision based on one or more experiences that they wished to avoid repeating.
Again no offense Apple Fanboys, old Steve does have good taste, but you have to admit for old Steve it has always been
While I'm a happy user of Apple products, I don't think of myself as a fanboy. But some folks here on/. do classify me as such, so I'll respond in kind for purposes of this post:
Your comments about SJ's need for control are absolutely on the mark and correct, and don't seem to be insulting or judgemental at all. You correctly cite that it's just how he does things in order to create the products he wants to create. And he's got legions of fans because the appreciate his work.
Apple products aren't for everyone, and that's fine. I wish more people who didn't like them took your view: "not my cuppa tea, I'm not going to buy them", rather than "Steve Jobs is a Nazi Hitler Obama!" or some such.
What amazes me is the Apple fanboys aren't pushing for Steve to name a successor
This is probably because they (we?) know that there's nobody who quite shares his vision. If one could graft Tim Cook's head with Jonny Ive's soul, you'd get something close. But to name anybody (publicly) today would cause rioting in the streets.
And don't forget, we're all one screech of the brakes away from pushing daisies. Jobs could name anyone tomorrow, and then end up outliving him or her by a decade. But just because such a declaration hasn't been made publicly, don't think that there isn't a flash drive somewhere with SJ's wishes stored securely. Succession planning is key to any company's longevity, and I'll bet that Jobs already knows, and has already communicated to at least a couple of core members of the board, who he feels is best suited for the Job.
I'm totally with you, esp. on the last point. My wife and I had a kid a year ago, and sleep hasn't been the same since. Over the same period of time, I've learned for the first time in my life what it means to have to be humble about my memory. Used to be near photographic. Now it's all a jumble. Shows you what 13 months of 5 hours a night of sleep (with the occasional additional nap to almost catch up) will do to you.
See, I'm not sure I'd call it lock-in; I'd simply call it raising the barrier to entry.
There is nothing preventing developers from rebuilding their apps for multiple devices. So it costs them more to do so, but technically speaking, they can choose whichever platforms to develop for.
If they decide that the iPhone is their best primary target, then Apple gets the benefit of that until they have the resources to re-develop for Android or other platforms. If a consumer decides to switch from iPhone to another platform, there's nothing preventing a developer who has created two versions of an app from offering their customer a free or reduced-rate license for the new version to allow them to move away.
It may be a pain in the ass, but it's totally within Apple's rights. They've done the calculus, and they seem to feel that developers will continue to create Apple-specific apps, even if that only allows access to a small chunk of the smartphone market. Developers are still free to address the rest of the market using Flash or whatever other tools are available.
I think the question here is: who is the customer? For Apple, it's the consumer, the one who buys the phone and the apps, and they feel that they are addressing their customer's needs while adding some--not insurmountable, but some--protection to their own business.
Google's customer is really advertisers. They don't care about any of this as long as lots of vendors put Android on lots of devices, enabling lots of access to Google ads. I realize with iAd that advertisers are also customers of Apple's, but that's a new addition, and they by no means lock their developers into using iAd (at this time).
Adobe's customer is the developer community. Of course they'll echo the same sentiment as the people who are using their products to ease the development cycle. But just like Apple, they're playing this game for money, trying to protect their business, but they're acting like they're fighting for freedom. It's just not that lofty.
Maybe they should pull a Palm and create some sort of framework that allows a phone to be jailbroken, and then sets up a VM framework that allows their apps to run unhindered, and allows the user to switch back to the regular iphone with a finger gesture. Apple would break it with a firmware update, but it would certainly be a nice tilting-at-windmills display.
I heard that the 5g, slated for next year, will be like those sponge toys. Put it in water and it'll turn into an iPad. Need the phone factor again? Put it in your oven for 45 minutes.
Disclaimer: This management method looks like it would be a bitch to scale.
Good point; it may be worth considering that if your company is so big that treating people like human beings doesn't scale, it's time to break up into smaller, more manageable units.
I read somewhere that 3M Corp actually does that, breaking off independent business units for each product line. As soon as a particular unit gets to be above 300 people, they figure, they can safely be split in two. If one of the two parts can't survive on its own, they let it die, as it was probably a drain on the bottom line anyway.
Yup! Courier is going to kick the iPad's ass! What's that you say? OK, then that HP Windows 7 slate... No? Well, I'm sure someone will make a competing product and actually ship...
Fair enough, but your definition isn't identical to that of all the folks doing the buying (or not buying) of ipads and netbooks. There are other definitions.
That's right. This story which doesn't mention Apple, which benefits users of basically all modern browsers, which isn't bad for anyone except maybe Adobe---except that Adobe is also building HTML5 tools that they'll do just fine selling--is clearly just targeted to hardcore hipster apple d-bags.
I'm pretty sure that an equal number don't give a damn about Adobe and their products. As far as this site goes, trashing Flash, nothing of value was lost.
Slashdot Mirror
So are you saying that slavery was a good idea, or are you saying that based on an oversight of our founding fathers, any actions by Lincoln should have been preceded by an appropriate constitutional amendment that would have had to be approved by the majority of the states? Or are you saying something else entirely?
For someone like Lincoln to have stood idly by on something as important as slavery as well as secession, claiming that his hands were tied by something written 90 years earlier would have been cowardly and just plain wrong. There are times when sticking with precedent is right, and there are times for taking action to establish new precedent. That's why we have leaders.
Sometimes it goes horribly wrong, i.e. with our ridiculous war in Iraq and human rights violations in Gitmo, but when you've got someone intelligent and experienced in charge, doing the right thing will have more benefits than liabilities in the long run.
To even insinuate that Lincoln's exercise of federal force was a bad thing in any sense of the word is wrong in many, many ways. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but throwing him in with "the other guys" indicates to me that you rue the change from pure Jeffersonian governance.
The truth is, one size does not fit all. That's what the people on the conservative side of the spectrum hate about central government. But to suggest that the same logic doesn't apply to the constitution itself--that it should never be re-interpreted when an out of context problem comes up--is simply idiocy.
I've heard this idea and I like it. Maybe Apple could call this second market the CRApp store. 'CR' stands for Consumer Rights.
The iPad is a *new* device, and anything published on it is available there in addition to all the other devices and media through which publication was previously possible. How could this be a censorship issue worthy of government attention?
Is it censorship? In the broadest sense, yes. But do I want the federal gov't meddling with this? Any federal gov't? It sets a scary precedent.
No no, it's German for "The Flash, THE!"
On the one hand, you do have to register your car purchases. Bad example.
On the other hand, nail guns are awesome. Did you see No Country for Old Men? That guy was brutal!!
Apparently, it's not that hard to take away: "ID please?"
I find your comment thought-provoking, but what it led me to is the thought that maybe, just maybe, the use of a cell phone--which uses FCC-controlled air waves--is not a god given right. I understand the civil libertarian's stance, but we still have the means of anonymous communication we did at the time the constitution was written: in-person, postal mail (one end is anonymous, at least), and oh, I don't know, hidden notes taped to park benches?
So the question is, if anonymous speech is indeed a right, does that right extend to all media?
Like many other posters, I'm dubious as to the successful results of this new law, but in many cases, what's being attempted is to add extra hurdles that will make it less likely that someone is going to do nefarious things. Does it stop people like Tim McVey from buying a ton of fertilizer and making a bomb? Does it stop drug dealers from getting hand guns? No, I guess it doesn't stop all of it. But I think it does stop some of it. Maybe there'd have been two dozen McVeys without the fertilizer tracking laws.
I'm not sure where I stand on this particular law, having said all that; I could probably make as many arguments for it as against it. But what I'm pretty sure that I don't feel that anonymous communication over a spectrum that is federally regulated and run by corporations who are even more evil than the government is a god given right.
You want anonymous? Buy some walkie talkies that use unregulated airspace, set up your own network of repeaters, and put a scrambler/descrambler at both ends. Too expensive? Talk to your friends in person. Need to reach them on cell phone? Maybe it's OK to register.
I hate "I agree" posts, but... I totally agree. Breaking Bad is one of the best shows on TV. Between that and Mad Men, AMC has really started to show some great innovation in TV writing and production.
One might say he has learned. All the way to the bank. Whether someone has won or lost really depends on your definitions for those terms.
It seems to me that the only major cell phone hardware/software vendor that's "lost" is Palm, and even their contributions may find a new post-fire-sale life in the loving arms of HP.
Well, I think the GP poster was referring to android fanbois, which you're calling reverse fanbois or apple hatebois. They're no different from apple fanbois, who are windows mobile and android hatebois. And of course, they'd all be the same as winmob fanbois, except I'm not sure there are any.
But my point is that the fanboi/hateboi set are a relatively small number, but they're vocal and annoying. There are probably more fanboi- and hateboi-haters than actual fanbois and hatebois out there. But it just takes one troll to get a lot of people spinning their wheels.
Actually, I think the GP poster was talking about Android fanbois, and effectively supporting your reasoned statement.
or better yet, 3rd parties'. There may be more than one 3rd party.
And this is more stylistic than grammatical, but one usually spells out numbers up to and including ten, so it should be "third parties'", or "their 25th attempt to fix the problem failed, too".
Just saying, if you're going to be pedantic, do it right.
Are we to assume that scalpers don't/can't hire people to stand in line with pre-paid debit cards?
You're absolutely right. As such, this story could be summed up as: Breaking news! Apple does something mildly inconvenient to a handful of people and people who hate Apple anyway freak out and use it as an excuse to post vitriolic diatribe throughout the Internets!
I mean, really, who carries $500 in cash anymore? Could they have done a better job with this to avoid PR flack? Yes. Is it silly and annoying to refuse cash? Yes. Why did they do it? They probably found that there were scenarios where one person sent out dozens of people with a given card (i.e. copies of their personal card, or a business card) and had them buy out stock.
It's certainly possible that this was just a pure and simple bone-headed maneuver, but it's equally likely, in my book, that it was a decision based on one or more experiences that they wished to avoid repeating.
Again no offense Apple Fanboys, old Steve does have good taste, but you have to admit for old Steve it has always been
While I'm a happy user of Apple products, I don't think of myself as a fanboy. But some folks here on /. do classify me as such, so I'll respond in kind for purposes of this post:
Your comments about SJ's need for control are absolutely on the mark and correct, and don't seem to be insulting or judgemental at all. You correctly cite that it's just how he does things in order to create the products he wants to create. And he's got legions of fans because the appreciate his work.
Apple products aren't for everyone, and that's fine. I wish more people who didn't like them took your view: "not my cuppa tea, I'm not going to buy them", rather than "Steve Jobs is a Nazi Hitler Obama!" or some such.
What amazes me is the Apple fanboys aren't pushing for Steve to name a successor
This is probably because they (we?) know that there's nobody who quite shares his vision. If one could graft Tim Cook's head with Jonny Ive's soul, you'd get something close. But to name anybody (publicly) today would cause rioting in the streets.
And don't forget, we're all one screech of the brakes away from pushing daisies. Jobs could name anyone tomorrow, and then end up outliving him or her by a decade. But just because such a declaration hasn't been made publicly, don't think that there isn't a flash drive somewhere with SJ's wishes stored securely. Succession planning is key to any company's longevity, and I'll bet that Jobs already knows, and has already communicated to at least a couple of core members of the board, who he feels is best suited for the Job.
I'm totally with you, esp. on the last point. My wife and I had a kid a year ago, and sleep hasn't been the same since. Over the same period of time, I've learned for the first time in my life what it means to have to be humble about my memory. Used to be near photographic. Now it's all a jumble. Shows you what 13 months of 5 hours a night of sleep (with the occasional additional nap to almost catch up) will do to you.
I see the irony, especially because this is all regarding a perfectly cromulent word.
Johnny Normalization? Don't remember him. Are you thinking of Bobby Tables?
See, I'm not sure I'd call it lock-in; I'd simply call it raising the barrier to entry.
There is nothing preventing developers from rebuilding their apps for multiple devices. So it costs them more to do so, but technically speaking, they can choose whichever platforms to develop for.
If they decide that the iPhone is their best primary target, then Apple gets the benefit of that until they have the resources to re-develop for Android or other platforms. If a consumer decides to switch from iPhone to another platform, there's nothing preventing a developer who has created two versions of an app from offering their customer a free or reduced-rate license for the new version to allow them to move away.
It may be a pain in the ass, but it's totally within Apple's rights. They've done the calculus, and they seem to feel that developers will continue to create Apple-specific apps, even if that only allows access to a small chunk of the smartphone market. Developers are still free to address the rest of the market using Flash or whatever other tools are available.
I think the question here is: who is the customer? For Apple, it's the consumer, the one who buys the phone and the apps, and they feel that they are addressing their customer's needs while adding some--not insurmountable, but some--protection to their own business.
Google's customer is really advertisers. They don't care about any of this as long as lots of vendors put Android on lots of devices, enabling lots of access to Google ads. I realize with iAd that advertisers are also customers of Apple's, but that's a new addition, and they by no means lock their developers into using iAd (at this time).
Adobe's customer is the developer community. Of course they'll echo the same sentiment as the people who are using their products to ease the development cycle. But just like Apple, they're playing this game for money, trying to protect their business, but they're acting like they're fighting for freedom. It's just not that lofty.
Maybe they should pull a Palm and create some sort of framework that allows a phone to be jailbroken, and then sets up a VM framework that allows their apps to run unhindered, and allows the user to switch back to the regular iphone with a finger gesture. Apple would break it with a firmware update, but it would certainly be a nice tilting-at-windmills display.
I heard that the 5g, slated for next year, will be like those sponge toys. Put it in water and it'll turn into an iPad. Need the phone factor again? Put it in your oven for 45 minutes.
Disclaimer: This management method looks like it would be a bitch to scale.
Good point; it may be worth considering that if your company is so big that treating people like human beings doesn't scale, it's time to break up into smaller, more manageable units.
I read somewhere that 3M Corp actually does that, breaking off independent business units for each product line. As soon as a particular unit gets to be above 300 people, they figure, they can safely be split in two. If one of the two parts can't survive on its own, they let it die, as it was probably a drain on the bottom line anyway.
Yeah, Iceland's a great market. Assuming they get 100% market penetration, they'll sell 37 units. No, 38; Bjork had a kid.
Yup! Courier is going to kick the iPad's ass! What's that you say? OK, then that HP Windows 7 slate... No? Well, I'm sure someone will make a competing product and actually ship...
Fair enough, but your definition isn't identical to that of all the folks doing the buying (or not buying) of ipads and netbooks. There are other definitions.
That's right! That's why OpenOffice.org totally beats out the Microsoft suite.
That's right. This story which doesn't mention Apple, which benefits users of basically all modern browsers, which isn't bad for anyone except maybe Adobe---except that Adobe is also building HTML5 tools that they'll do just fine selling--is clearly just targeted to hardcore hipster apple d-bags.
I'm pretty sure that an equal number don't give a damn about Adobe and their products. As far as this site goes, trashing Flash, nothing of value was lost.
We, the rate payers subsidized them. In fact, last year, we subsidized millions of dollars in bonuses for Comcast executives.