My comments were regarding the many American/. readers who chime in any time the US is criticised, offering no logical rebuttal to the criticism, just some nonsense about WWII or democracy or freedom. I wonder what the reaction to this article would have been if the US took all the top spots?
No. To most people computers are tools, not a political statement. They don't care about open/closed source, as long as their computer does what they want. Just look at cars - people drive petrol cars instead of more clean alternatives, simply because it's easier, and they do what the drivers want. It's the same with operating systems. I sit down in front of my computer to achieve something, not to look at it and think to myself "I can edit the source code for everything I can see". If Linux doesn't allow me to do what I want, I don't use it. It's that simple. And the market seems to agree with me.
I've used OSX, Linux and Windows extensively, and Windows has the best balance for me. I like to use the keyboard whenever I can, so OSX is out. I like playing games so Linux is out. That doesn't leave me much choice.
You proved my point. The Poles DID have guns. They DID have tanks. They DID have aircraft, and it still wasn't enough. Some Americans with handguns, no tanks, no aircraft, no artillery and no close air support would get their asses handed to them in seconds. Thanks.
Where do you think those AK-47s came from? Iraq has a history of household assault-rifle ownership. They weren't in a big box in the desert marked "Do not open until the Americans roll into town". True, Saddam wasn't a big fan, but house-to-house raids weren't common during Saddam's era, so unless you have a big "Fuck you Saddam" sign on the front of your house, your guns were safe.
America's inability to stem violence in Iraq is simply because they're not trying to suppress the population. They're fighting their phantom enemies. If they wanted to surpress the people, they would. Quickly. And even more painfully than now.
You do realise this is the 21st century, don't you? The US has fighter jets, tanks, submarines, aircraft carriers, dogs that shoot bees out of their mouths, etc. The populace can't possibly even hope to attain the level of integration, training, equipment or logistical support that even the most average army in the world can muster. People having guns makes no difference to anyone. As I said before, Poland had guns, and they got their ass handed to them by an army. How you think some yokels with shotguns is going to scare some guys in an Abrams tasked with blowing up the trailer park is beyond me. The President never has to see the people if he doesn't want to, so whether they have sniper rifles or not is irrelevent. All that will happen is those with guns will be killed, and those without will go about their business. Unless you think some ridiculously futile gesture is going to help anyone, I fail to see how your argument makes any sense what so ever.
I don't think you're trolling... There seems to be many people on/. who don't like to think of their country as anything other than the "greatest". I guess having that jammed down your throat since you're born could have something to do with that. Cognitive dissonance. Tasty.
You should at least try to qualify your statements. Public education works fine in many, many countries. Just because it's fucked up in the US doesn't mean it's a failed ideology.
That's exactly my point. If the army won't fire on the populus, then the populus doesn't need to be armed in the first place. Either the Army WILL kill US citizens, or the citizens don't need guns. If the purpose of an armed populace is to keep the government in check, it can't be both.
Because it's more cost-effective for those companies to keep on selling petrol cars. They have no incentive to make those cars until the market makes them, which isn't happening anytime soon.
what would that achieve? Will bullets stop what they're doing? They control the fucking ARMY. Do you think some accountants with handguns and no training will be able to do a single paltry thing? Good fucking luck. Poland had a trained, supplied army (with tanks and shit) and that didn't stop the Germans. If a government wants to fuck over a people, whether the people are armed or not just determines how many innocents are killed before the government gets its way. Look at Iraq - everyone has an AK47, and Saddam was in power for decades. When they revolted, tens of thousands died, and Saddam was still in power.
Or, your assumption could be completely inaccurate. The police have access to many, many talented hackers in various aspect of their own organisation, as well as Government agencies such as GCHQ, as well as legal rights to request any ISP to comply with their criminal investigations. Your average 14-year-old couldn't even DREAM of the resources the police have at hand in dealing with computer crime, and gaining access to systems in order to collect evidence. But please, continue to debate on flawed assumptions as if you know what you're talking about. It's funny.
The cops have "Computer Crime Units", and their own serving Police Officers who do the hacking. Obviously, giving Johnny l33tpants access to 10 downing street would be absolutely ridiculous.
Most people don't buy phones for that reason. They buy iPods for that. The 8GB storage means that it doesn't do "everything that the world's best-selling media player does", without frequent visits home, or docking to switch-out media. Look at the Nokia N95 - GPS, 5MP camera with Carl Zeiss optics, 3.5G, 802.11g (WPA, WPA2), supports more audio formats (MP3, WMA, RealAudio, SP-MIDI, AAC+, eAAC+, MIDI, AMR, M4A, True Tones), Hardware-accelerated 3D graphics, and it all weighs 120g. That's a multi-function tool if ever there was one. And it doens't overlap functionality with your iPod, so you can comfortably carry both around without asking yourself why you gave 1 company enough money for 2 devices, especially as one of said devices claims to do everything the other one does...
People do get it. It's not a difficult concept to understand. It's a phone that takes some aspects of the iPod, except storage, sticks a phone on the side, and is limited in what it can do, and on which networks. The bullshit arguments about "Cingular don't want their network taken down by custom applications" and "we don't want third-party apps to screw the experience" are the real cop-out arguments. If those claims were true, there wouldn't be a single operating cell network in the world, and no working phones.
I love iPods - I've been using them since they first came out (I still have my battered 5gb ipod in a drawer). Their MAJOR selling point has been their size - both externally and internally. This iPhone fails on both sides. Having a great screen and no storage to power it is somewhat ridiculous. Like having a car that can go 900MPH, but only has enough fuel to get up to 70MPH before conking out. If the iPhone wasn't locked, could run custom software, and had a lot more storage, then it would make sense as an apple product. As it is, it's several steps back in one direction, and several forward in another. To sum up: it's a compromise, as you'll still need to carry your iPod around.
We'll get this phone later, as it's from an American company. Luckily, we get phones from other companies (Japanese and European) before the US. Like Nokia, who's smartphone release later this year beats the iPhone on features (GPS, can be unlocked, etc.) Everytime my US friends come to the UK they almost shit when they see the small phones people are chucking around. Americans don't seem to gel with mobile phones as well as they do in Europe - I guess the fractured cellphone networks in the states might have something to do with it.
Most companies use outlook. iPhones won't be replacing Blackberries as long as they don't sync with Outlook/Exchange. Whether Outlook sucks ass or not, unless it is supported by hardware, that hardware won't be joining the fun. By not supporting the most widely-adopted corporate mail setups, Apple has relegated their iPhone to those who don't have any syncing or compatibility concerns. The iPhone won't "just work", and that might cause some friction.
Well, seeing as there is no evidence for your claims, that is obviously just opinion. As this service is not even used by everyone, suggesting the lack of HDD is crippling everyone is ridiculous. Many people don't even use their XBox360s online, so downloadable games are meaningless. But don't let that stop you defending Sony's ridiculous console. Please.
But what if that is completely unintuitive and just causes problems? My site is for my own use, and having it all in one webpage is brilliant. I can control the player exactly, giving it functionality not found in other players. The player talks to the webpage to update the content. It's an EXACT copy of the iTunes interface, linked remotely over the net to my library at home, only all you need is a flash plugin, not a 20+ MB download to get the same functionality. Sometimes choice isn't necessary, and this is one of those things.
Because I'm not providing it to everyone else - this is a tool I use for me. Flash is PERFECT for it. I can recreate the entire iTunes interface, artwork, playlists, gapless playback, etc. It's more than just a media player, it's a media player you can fully customise. That's why it's better than just linking to MP3s. Plus, you don't need any disk space, and don't need to faff around downloading MP3s and putting them in a playlist. It's not just about listening to music, but the user journey from thinking "I want to listen to that" to them actually listening to it.
As for being light, yes it is lighter. I don't need an external application to play the music, and I get greater control over it. I can integrate the player directly with the rest of the interface. As I said, this is for me, and it works PERFECTLY. Flash definitely has some really, really good uses. I'm not being rude but I guess if your idea of streaming music is 13,000 linked mp3s in a long list and dropping them on winamp you might not get that.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone should have told that to those asshats using WP on unarmed civilians.
My comments were regarding the many American /. readers who chime in any time the US is criticised, offering no logical rebuttal to the criticism, just some nonsense about WWII or democracy or freedom. I wonder what the reaction to this article would have been if the US took all the top spots?
No. To most people computers are tools, not a political statement. They don't care about open/closed source, as long as their computer does what they want. Just look at cars - people drive petrol cars instead of more clean alternatives, simply because it's easier, and they do what the drivers want. It's the same with operating systems. I sit down in front of my computer to achieve something, not to look at it and think to myself "I can edit the source code for everything I can see". If Linux doesn't allow me to do what I want, I don't use it. It's that simple. And the market seems to agree with me.
I've used OSX, Linux and Windows extensively, and Windows has the best balance for me. I like to use the keyboard whenever I can, so OSX is out. I like playing games so Linux is out. That doesn't leave me much choice.
You proved my point. The Poles DID have guns. They DID have tanks. They DID have aircraft, and it still wasn't enough. Some Americans with handguns, no tanks, no aircraft, no artillery and no close air support would get their asses handed to them in seconds. Thanks.
Where do you think those AK-47s came from? Iraq has a history of household assault-rifle ownership. They weren't in a big box in the desert marked "Do not open until the Americans roll into town". True, Saddam wasn't a big fan, but house-to-house raids weren't common during Saddam's era, so unless you have a big "Fuck you Saddam" sign on the front of your house, your guns were safe.
America's inability to stem violence in Iraq is simply because they're not trying to suppress the population. They're fighting their phantom enemies. If they wanted to surpress the people, they would. Quickly. And even more painfully than now.
You do realise this is the 21st century, don't you? The US has fighter jets, tanks, submarines, aircraft carriers, dogs that shoot bees out of their mouths, etc. The populace can't possibly even hope to attain the level of integration, training, equipment or logistical support that even the most average army in the world can muster. People having guns makes no difference to anyone. As I said before, Poland had guns, and they got their ass handed to them by an army. How you think some yokels with shotguns is going to scare some guys in an Abrams tasked with blowing up the trailer park is beyond me. The President never has to see the people if he doesn't want to, so whether they have sniper rifles or not is irrelevent. All that will happen is those with guns will be killed, and those without will go about their business. Unless you think some ridiculously futile gesture is going to help anyone, I fail to see how your argument makes any sense what so ever.
I don't think you're trolling... There seems to be many people on /. who don't like to think of their country as anything other than the "greatest". I guess having that jammed down your throat since you're born could have something to do with that. Cognitive dissonance. Tasty.
You should at least try to qualify your statements. Public education works fine in many, many countries. Just because it's fucked up in the US doesn't mean it's a failed ideology.
12345, actually. 1234 was cracked too easily.
That's exactly my point. If the army won't fire on the populus, then the populus doesn't need to be armed in the first place. Either the Army WILL kill US citizens, or the citizens don't need guns. If the purpose of an armed populace is to keep the government in check, it can't be both.
It's not FUD at all. It's one person's opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, if it was a marketing campaign, you might have a point.
Troll? The article is about the American Attourney General, not the World's attourney general. Put down your flag and read what I wrote.
Because it's more cost-effective for those companies to keep on selling petrol cars. They have no incentive to make those cars until the market makes them, which isn't happening anytime soon.
I think you meant "America" instead of "The world", fyi.
what would that achieve? Will bullets stop what they're doing? They control the fucking ARMY. Do you think some accountants with handguns and no training will be able to do a single paltry thing? Good fucking luck. Poland had a trained, supplied army (with tanks and shit) and that didn't stop the Germans. If a government wants to fuck over a people, whether the people are armed or not just determines how many innocents are killed before the government gets its way. Look at Iraq - everyone has an AK47, and Saddam was in power for decades. When they revolted, tens of thousands died, and Saddam was still in power.
Or, your assumption could be completely inaccurate. The police have access to many, many talented hackers in various aspect of their own organisation, as well as Government agencies such as GCHQ, as well as legal rights to request any ISP to comply with their criminal investigations. Your average 14-year-old couldn't even DREAM of the resources the police have at hand in dealing with computer crime, and gaining access to systems in order to collect evidence. But please, continue to debate on flawed assumptions as if you know what you're talking about. It's funny.
The cops have "Computer Crime Units", and their own serving Police Officers who do the hacking. Obviously, giving Johnny l33tpants access to 10 downing street would be absolutely ridiculous.
Most people don't buy phones for that reason. They buy iPods for that. The 8GB storage means that it doesn't do "everything that the world's best-selling media player does", without frequent visits home, or docking to switch-out media. Look at the Nokia N95 - GPS, 5MP camera with Carl Zeiss optics, 3.5G, 802.11g (WPA, WPA2), supports more audio formats (MP3, WMA, RealAudio, SP-MIDI, AAC+, eAAC+, MIDI, AMR, M4A, True Tones), Hardware-accelerated 3D graphics, and it all weighs 120g. That's a multi-function tool if ever there was one. And it doens't overlap functionality with your iPod, so you can comfortably carry both around without asking yourself why you gave 1 company enough money for 2 devices, especially as one of said devices claims to do everything the other one does...
People do get it. It's not a difficult concept to understand. It's a phone that takes some aspects of the iPod, except storage, sticks a phone on the side, and is limited in what it can do, and on which networks. The bullshit arguments about "Cingular don't want their network taken down by custom applications" and "we don't want third-party apps to screw the experience" are the real cop-out arguments. If those claims were true, there wouldn't be a single operating cell network in the world, and no working phones.
I love iPods - I've been using them since they first came out (I still have my battered 5gb ipod in a drawer). Their MAJOR selling point has been their size - both externally and internally. This iPhone fails on both sides. Having a great screen and no storage to power it is somewhat ridiculous. Like having a car that can go 900MPH, but only has enough fuel to get up to 70MPH before conking out. If the iPhone wasn't locked, could run custom software, and had a lot more storage, then it would make sense as an apple product. As it is, it's several steps back in one direction, and several forward in another. To sum up: it's a compromise, as you'll still need to carry your iPod around.
We'll get this phone later, as it's from an American company. Luckily, we get phones from other companies (Japanese and European) before the US. Like Nokia, who's smartphone release later this year beats the iPhone on features (GPS, can be unlocked, etc.) Everytime my US friends come to the UK they almost shit when they see the small phones people are chucking around. Americans don't seem to gel with mobile phones as well as they do in Europe - I guess the fractured cellphone networks in the states might have something to do with it.
Most companies use outlook. iPhones won't be replacing Blackberries as long as they don't sync with Outlook/Exchange. Whether Outlook sucks ass or not, unless it is supported by hardware, that hardware won't be joining the fun. By not supporting the most widely-adopted corporate mail setups, Apple has relegated their iPhone to those who don't have any syncing or compatibility concerns. The iPhone won't "just work", and that might cause some friction.
Well, seeing as there is no evidence for your claims, that is obviously just opinion. As this service is not even used by everyone, suggesting the lack of HDD is crippling everyone is ridiculous. Many people don't even use their XBox360s online, so downloadable games are meaningless. But don't let that stop you defending Sony's ridiculous console. Please.
That was a joke. The parent wrote "Sweeden". :) But thanks for the tip. ba-DING! I'm here all week.
But what if that is completely unintuitive and just causes problems? My site is for my own use, and having it all in one webpage is brilliant. I can control the player exactly, giving it functionality not found in other players. The player talks to the webpage to update the content. It's an EXACT copy of the iTunes interface, linked remotely over the net to my library at home, only all you need is a flash plugin, not a 20+ MB download to get the same functionality. Sometimes choice isn't necessary, and this is one of those things.
Because I'm not providing it to everyone else - this is a tool I use for me. Flash is PERFECT for it. I can recreate the entire iTunes interface, artwork, playlists, gapless playback, etc. It's more than just a media player, it's a media player you can fully customise. That's why it's better than just linking to MP3s. Plus, you don't need any disk space, and don't need to faff around downloading MP3s and putting them in a playlist. It's not just about listening to music, but the user journey from thinking "I want to listen to that" to them actually listening to it.
As for being light, yes it is lighter. I don't need an external application to play the music, and I get greater control over it. I can integrate the player directly with the rest of the interface. As I said, this is for me, and it works PERFECTLY. Flash definitely has some really, really good uses. I'm not being rude but I guess if your idea of streaming music is 13,000 linked mp3s in a long list and dropping them on winamp you might not get that.