There's so much malicious software out there. Apple can't just offer up anything on their store, they'd be putting their customers at risk. But they did need a convenient way for their users to find and install apps. You may say "they should make it easier to install arbitrary software on iOS," but should they really? It's not exactly rocket science to unlock an iPhone, and if you don't want to do that, you can pay $99/year for a developer license.
Would I implement it that way? No, I'd probably build in a complicated procedure by which a user can unlock it, and charge a small fee just to discourage developers from using App Store alternatives. But the effect would be the same, to prevent inexperienced users from accidentally installing malicious software. This has been a huge problem in personal computers, and it's really inexcusable now that we know better. Computers up to this point have essentially been defective because of this flaw.
The article says early intervention and support is essential to preventing these kind I'd disorders. That implies that such support need not be provided by the mother. Nevertheless, if your own mother doesn't care about you, odds are on one else does either. You see a lot more single mothers than single fathers after-all.
They had one last year! I know because I was here for that one too. I'm not saying the storm isn't dangerous. But it's not unprecedented, and it's not "the perfect storm" or a "super storm" or anything like that. That's just hyperbole.
People who claim to be Creationists are almost always ignorant of evolution.
The difference is this is a broad statement about an entire group of people. And the statement itself is ignorant. In the US teaching of evolution in high school is commonplace, it's not reasonable to simply assume most of these people are ignorant of evolution. You can't make broad statements like this and not expect people to be offended. If I said black people are almost always ignorant of evolution, you probably wouldn't think I was being reasonable. His statement here is the same. Creationists are a diverse group of people, and his characterization of them is misguided.
An unprecedented and mighty tempest? This is a category 1 hurricane. Since the scale goes up to 5, I think it's safe to say this isn't unprecedented, unless you expect me to believe a hurricane has never hit the eastern seaboard. And don't give me that superstorm nonsense, we've had big snowstorms on the eastern seaboard before. There's nothing unprecedented about it, big storms hit the eastern seaboard every once in a while.
It seems like you don't have a clue what libertarians believe. It seems like you believe if you put words into the mouths of others, and defeat the words you made up, you'll have proved those people wrong. Of course, you've actually only defeated yourself.
Libertarians do not believe people will behave well without regulations. They also don't believe people will behave well with them. And they don't trust the government to protect them from abuse. That's why they believe the individual must care for himself. It's not that they don't expect abuse, it's just they're not dillusional enough to believe the government will intercede on their behalf.
The same thing goes for climbing a latter, connecting hoses, and using power tools. These are devices designed for human use. If you design both the tool and the robot to be compatible, you can arrive at a simpler solution that works better.
I suppose the difference here is the answer to the question "why should I be humble." It seems you would answer "to fit in to society and make things go more smoothly." While I would answer "to avoid being overconfident in myself and my opinions." To my way of thinking, it would be inappropriate to seek humility as a way to avoid clashing with others, as doing so may cause me to neglect essential social obligations. To me it seems important to make sure my concerns are warranted before I voice them, and to be open to the possibility I am wrong about things, but fitting into a group must be a secondary concern. If fitting into a group were my primary concern, there's no telling what I might do to achieve that goal. I need to be grounded, and to have a moral compass to avoid being tossed around by fickle social concerns.
The key to humility is recognizing your flaws and your mistakes. But you can't just assume they'll be obvious, you'd be surprised just how spotty your memory can be. You really have to actively seek them out.
Nerds aren't the only people who are arrogant. But they are the most likely to go trough life being arrogant without anyone reigning them in. That's because a minority of people have technical skills, so arrogance is generally accept from nerds. They don't need to be socially aware in order to get by.
Slashdot community, is this the best you can do for moderation? If you mod down everything you disagree with, all you're really doing is shielding yourself from opposing viewpoints. You're basically working to make yourself stupider and your website less useful. I will never understand the circle-jerk mentality that seems so common on the internet (and everywhere else).
I use it. The problem's not so much that it's horrible as much as it's that you need a tutorial to learn how to use it. It's probably too much to expect users to make an effort to learn a new OS when the alternatives don't really have the same requirement.
Apple is of the opinion that they do not owe any licensing fees because those fees have already been paid by their parts supplier. This decision has been affirmed by every court that's reviewed it. Samsung continues to file injunctions to ban sales of Apple products even though it is quite clear they don't have a winnable case in court. At this point, it makes perfect sense for Apple to sue them over these lawsuits, Samsung can't possibly really believe they will ever win one of these cases, and they're really just using them to harass Apple in retaliation for Apple's own (winnable) lawsuits.
With regard to the article you linked: if you actually read the judges ruling, rather than Groklaw's questionable interpretation of it, you will notice that the ITC judge is simply claiming that the ITC does have jurisdiction.
With regard to the notion that Apple should have made a counter offer: since Apple feels they owe nothing, what counter offer would you propose they make? They can't go that rout, because in doing so they would have to give up the patent exhaustion argument (that their chip supplier has already paid the appropriate licensing fees and Samsung has no legal right to ask for fees from Apple) which is not a realistic possibility.
Finally, this judge has said that there's no evidence to back Apple's assertion that the fees Samsung was asking are excessive. It may be true that Apple didn't present evidence to that effect, but Samsung was asking for nearly $15 per iPhone, which is probably more than Apple paid for the RF chips that use Samsung's FRAND patents. It's hard to see how you could consider that a reasonable price.
I'm hardly the only one who thinks he was a micromanager. Who other than a micromanager would go into a nuclear power station during a melt-down? That's not an appropriate role for the president. That's not a freak occurrence either, it was typical of his management style and it was the reason congress wasn't willing to cooperate with him past his first year or so. Read about it if you don't believe me.
Can you name a StarTrek captain that didn't seem arrogant to you? I'm pretty sure that's a job requirement. Providing episodes with story-lines by working against the interests of her crew, however, is not a job requirement, and it's curious they cast her in that role. It makes a situation where we're rooting against her instead of for her.
I suppose she was meant to contrast with Sisko, who was willing to break pretty much any rule for the benefit of his crew or society in general. In one episode he collaborates with Garak, who eventually assassinates a member of the Romulan high council to bring them into the war. In the end of the episode he concludes that he'd do it again. Janeway, on the other hand, have never met a rule she didn't like. At one point she happily complies with the rules of an alien society and foregoes an opportunity to cut 50 years off of their journey! The conclusion you can draw is that following rules is only for people who hate themselves and hate everyone else.
The trouble with Janeway was that the writers seemed to think she should fill the role of the series' primary antagonist. Also, she was a bit of a micro-manager, essentially the Jimmy Carter of starship captains.
Fully actualized humans alter their brain and body chemistry all the time. Astronauts do it. Fighter pilots do it. Doctors do it. Athletes do it.
I don't see any reason to believe those people are "fully actualized." Why would someone who is "fully actualized" see the need to alter their body chemistry in order to enhance their "performance," in the face of potential harmful side-effects. A fighter pilot, maybe, in order to stay awake, but those others don't really need them. This whole conversation reeks of insecurity. Most of these uses are really no better than the "male enhances" they sell at conveince stores. Only someone who's insecure has that much trouble accepting their limitations.
The only possible way a tablet can displace a PC for typing intensive applications is with an actual keyboard.
That's like saying the only way to replace a horse with a car for off-road applications is tho hitch the car up to some horses. It's true that you can't type as fast on a tablet. But attaching a keyboard to a tablet is silly. It's a new form-factor, it's not supposed to replace a computer for every purpose.
Not to mention that, when typing on a screen, you must keep your eyes on that "keyboard" like a fucking moron.
This has the be the stupidest complaint about tablets that I hear in every discussion. You don't need to be able to touch-type because you're looking at the keyboard anyway!
If people don't expect the Windows Tablet to run Windows applications, then why is MS going to be selling a version that does in January? Don't you see that MS is going to need to make a concerted effort to let users know that this is THE difference between these two products, if the don't want people to buy the Windows RT tablet expecting it to run their existing applications.
Slashdot Mirror
There's so much malicious software out there. Apple can't just offer up anything on their store, they'd be putting their customers at risk. But they did need a convenient way for their users to find and install apps. You may say "they should make it easier to install arbitrary software on iOS," but should they really? It's not exactly rocket science to unlock an iPhone, and if you don't want to do that, you can pay $99/year for a developer license.
Would I implement it that way? No, I'd probably build in a complicated procedure by which a user can unlock it, and charge a small fee just to discourage developers from using App Store alternatives. But the effect would be the same, to prevent inexperienced users from accidentally installing malicious software. This has been a huge problem in personal computers, and it's really inexcusable now that we know better. Computers up to this point have essentially been defective because of this flaw.
He's the one who designed all their successful products, after all.
The article says early intervention and support is essential to preventing these kind I'd disorders. That implies that such support need not be provided by the mother. Nevertheless, if your own mother doesn't care about you, odds are on one else does either. You see a lot more single mothers than single fathers after-all.
They had one last year! I know because I was here for that one too. I'm not saying the storm isn't dangerous. But it's not unprecedented, and it's not "the perfect storm" or a "super storm" or anything like that. That's just hyperbole.
The difference is this is a broad statement about an entire group of people. And the statement itself is ignorant. In the US teaching of evolution in high school is commonplace, it's not reasonable to simply assume most of these people are ignorant of evolution. You can't make broad statements like this and not expect people to be offended. If I said black people are almost always ignorant of evolution, you probably wouldn't think I was being reasonable. His statement here is the same. Creationists are a diverse group of people, and his characterization of them is misguided.
An unprecedented and mighty tempest? This is a category 1 hurricane. Since the scale goes up to 5, I think it's safe to say this isn't unprecedented, unless you expect me to believe a hurricane has never hit the eastern seaboard. And don't give me that superstorm nonsense, we've had big snowstorms on the eastern seaboard before. There's nothing unprecedented about it, big storms hit the eastern seaboard every once in a while.
It seems like you don't have a clue what libertarians believe. It seems like you believe if you put words into the mouths of others, and defeat the words you made up, you'll have proved those people wrong. Of course, you've actually only defeated yourself.
Libertarians do not believe people will behave well without regulations. They also don't believe people will behave well with them. And they don't trust the government to protect them from abuse. That's why they believe the individual must care for himself. It's not that they don't expect abuse, it's just they're not dillusional enough to believe the government will intercede on their behalf.
Why not just use one of those self-driving cars?
The same thing goes for climbing a latter, connecting hoses, and using power tools. These are devices designed for human use. If you design both the tool and the robot to be compatible, you can arrive at a simpler solution that works better.
I suppose the difference here is the answer to the question "why should I be humble." It seems you would answer "to fit in to society and make things go more smoothly." While I would answer "to avoid being overconfident in myself and my opinions." To my way of thinking, it would be inappropriate to seek humility as a way to avoid clashing with others, as doing so may cause me to neglect essential social obligations. To me it seems important to make sure my concerns are warranted before I voice them, and to be open to the possibility I am wrong about things, but fitting into a group must be a secondary concern. If fitting into a group were my primary concern, there's no telling what I might do to achieve that goal. I need to be grounded, and to have a moral compass to avoid being tossed around by fickle social concerns.
The key to humility is recognizing your flaws and your mistakes. But you can't just assume they'll be obvious, you'd be surprised just how spotty your memory can be. You really have to actively seek them out.
Nerds aren't the only people who are arrogant. But they are the most likely to go trough life being arrogant without anyone reigning them in. That's because a minority of people have technical skills, so arrogance is generally accept from nerds. They don't need to be socially aware in order to get by.
Slashdot community, is this the best you can do for moderation? If you mod down everything you disagree with, all you're really doing is shielding yourself from opposing viewpoints. You're basically working to make yourself stupider and your website less useful. I will never understand the circle-jerk mentality that seems so common on the internet (and everywhere else).
I use it. The problem's not so much that it's horrible as much as it's that you need a tutorial to learn how to use it. It's probably too much to expect users to make an effort to learn a new OS when the alternatives don't really have the same requirement.
Apple is of the opinion that they do not owe any licensing fees because those fees have already been paid by their parts supplier. This decision has been affirmed by every court that's reviewed it. Samsung continues to file injunctions to ban sales of Apple products even though it is quite clear they don't have a winnable case in court. At this point, it makes perfect sense for Apple to sue them over these lawsuits, Samsung can't possibly really believe they will ever win one of these cases, and they're really just using them to harass Apple in retaliation for Apple's own (winnable) lawsuits.
With regard to the article you linked: if you actually read the judges ruling, rather than Groklaw's questionable interpretation of it, you will notice that the ITC judge is simply claiming that the ITC does have jurisdiction.
With regard to the notion that Apple should have made a counter offer: since Apple feels they owe nothing, what counter offer would you propose they make? They can't go that rout, because in doing so they would have to give up the patent exhaustion argument (that their chip supplier has already paid the appropriate licensing fees and Samsung has no legal right to ask for fees from Apple) which is not a realistic possibility.
Finally, this judge has said that there's no evidence to back Apple's assertion that the fees Samsung was asking are excessive. It may be true that Apple didn't present evidence to that effect, but Samsung was asking for nearly $15 per iPhone, which is probably more than Apple paid for the RF chips that use Samsung's FRAND patents. It's hard to see how you could consider that a reasonable price.
I'm hardly the only one who thinks he was a micromanager. Who other than a micromanager would go into a nuclear power station during a melt-down? That's not an appropriate role for the president. That's not a freak occurrence either, it was typical of his management style and it was the reason congress wasn't willing to cooperate with him past his first year or so. Read about it if you don't believe me.
I hope so! I haven't seen the end yet, I'm on season 5.
Can you name a StarTrek captain that didn't seem arrogant to you? I'm pretty sure that's a job requirement. Providing episodes with story-lines by working against the interests of her crew, however, is not a job requirement, and it's curious they cast her in that role. It makes a situation where we're rooting against her instead of for her.
I suppose she was meant to contrast with Sisko, who was willing to break pretty much any rule for the benefit of his crew or society in general. In one episode he collaborates with Garak, who eventually assassinates a member of the Romulan high council to bring them into the war. In the end of the episode he concludes that he'd do it again. Janeway, on the other hand, have never met a rule she didn't like. At one point she happily complies with the rules of an alien society and foregoes an opportunity to cut 50 years off of their journey! The conclusion you can draw is that following rules is only for people who hate themselves and hate everyone else.
The trouble with Janeway was that the writers seemed to think she should fill the role of the series' primary antagonist. Also, she was a bit of a micro-manager, essentially the Jimmy Carter of starship captains.
Usually, you can't look at the keyboard and the screen at the same time. With a tablet, you can.
The question is: is it safe? If its harmful, we should avoid using it. If not, who cares?
I don't see any reason to believe those people are "fully actualized." Why would someone who is "fully actualized" see the need to alter their body chemistry in order to enhance their "performance," in the face of potential harmful side-effects. A fighter pilot, maybe, in order to stay awake, but those others don't really need them. This whole conversation reeks of insecurity. Most of these uses are really no better than the "male enhances" they sell at conveince stores. Only someone who's insecure has that much trouble accepting their limitations.
Beluga whales, like all marine mammals, breathe air.
That's like saying the only way to replace a horse with a car for off-road applications is tho hitch the car up to some horses. It's true that you can't type as fast on a tablet. But attaching a keyboard to a tablet is silly. It's a new form-factor, it's not supposed to replace a computer for every purpose.
This has the be the stupidest complaint about tablets that I hear in every discussion. You don't need to be able to touch-type because you're looking at the keyboard anyway!
It sounds like you and your wife think the police are there to serve you. I can assure you this is not the role they fulfill in society.
If people don't expect the Windows Tablet to run Windows applications, then why is MS going to be selling a version that does in January? Don't you see that MS is going to need to make a concerted effort to let users know that this is THE difference between these two products, if the don't want people to buy the Windows RT tablet expecting it to run their existing applications.