I think he's trying to. He also seems naive enough to think that upper management have anything to do with things like design details. I bet he got a gigantic payout as a recompense for taking the fall for Apple.
The guy who should be taking the fall is Jobs, for putting aethetics before technical considerations in the team's mindset, and then insulting the intelligence of his customers by claiming that a) it's their fault for holding it wrong and b) that all other smartphones suffer the same problem when their own previous iPhones didn't.
Correct, but the controlled nature of the drug industry means that the only outlet for counterfeit drugs is the black market. It is highly unlikely that you will get counterfeit product from your local pharmacy. Anyone who buys their pharmaceuticals from the same guy their kids buy pot from deserves whatever outcome they get.
I do understand that the situation becomes more complex in the third world where access to legitimate product is more problematic and the regulatory infrastructure is much less developed, but this situation is more a political problem than a commercial one, and it does not shore up the ideological framework that underpins the modern patent and brand philosophy.
Yes, there should be rewards for genuine innovation and research costs need to be recouped. However, the exploitative results of the way the system is currently set up is unconscionable, and needs to be reviewed with an eye not only to profitability and commercial sustainability, but also to ethics and equity.
This "inside look" given to the ABC is just more PR spin to offset the iPhone 4 stink.
"Hey look how good our testing is. So you see, it *can't* be a product defect, it must be AT&T's network or a software glitch or somehow the fault of Nokia/RIM/Samsung. Can't be us, no siree, we have 'black labs' to do our exhaustive testing."
Aside from the WOOSH mentioned by the other posters, you also used "to" when you should have used "too". As much as I hate using net-slang, the only word I can say that describes your efforts here is FAIL.
This is great news. Especially the "functionality would be disabled until you view the ad". MS had the "are you really truly sure you want to move this file?" dialogs, Apple will have the "Are you truly sure that you do not want to buy a 12 ounce can of Heinz Beans?".
I also think that Apple can't afford to not do this. They have been forced to reduce their prices on their hardware, eating away their margins. I don't think that they would be able to continue to provide the level of support as well as the heavyweight retail presence with margins continuing to fall. Ads would increase the value to the bottom line of each sale.
Apple's "easy for the average Joe" goal with their products works. Apple stuff is easy for simple users. I don't use a Mac or an iPhone, but have to accept that there are many for whom they are a good option. There are a large number of things that I hate Apple products for, the desktop environment that does not lend itself to heavy multitasking (from a user perspective), the absurdly militant device compatibility rules (can't get any data on or off your iPhone unless it goes through iTunes from the same PC you used to set it up) and the poorly organized layout which makes Spotlight the main way to access your files and programs. iAds will go a long way to adding to the annoyance that is the Apple experience.
Meeting chairman: Let's give these negotiations a break, for a while. [Executives leave the room] Sales team leader: Look guys, we haven't convinced them that we're the best guys for their production line. I think they recognize that our services are best of breed, but we still need to get it in the bag. They're in there, deliberating right now, about whether to go with us or the competition. Does anyone have any ideas how we can close the deal? Sales team member 1: Well, I think we could highlight that we have a longer track record than the compet... Sales team member (Running back into meeting room): LEEEEEROOOOOY JEEEEEENKIIIIINS!!!!!!
I wrote about the problems in the Eurozone that arise from having conflicting monetary and fiscal policies in a blog entry linked to below. Basically put, the Eurozone forces member states to have materially identical monetary policies due to the unified currency and centralized state banking. Under such circumstances, nations are unable to compensate for national situations using fiscal policy alone, and their attempt to do so is a large part of what has landed Europe in the fiscal mess they're currently in.
That ad-hominem was added after a fairly lengthy post including several points. It doesn't surprise me that you've decided to ignore them all and skip straight to the last line.
Just so as you know, Einstein was also deeply religious, he saw his study of the natural world as being an investigation into the methods of God. Given that you seem to think that he was less religious than Newton (if such a thing could be quantified) then you are once again mistaken about the nature of a person you are referring to.
Neil Tyson, may be good at what he does, but he is not a religious academic. Montgomery Watt (not that I consider his work to be of high value, but just so you know why I referenced him) on the other hand studied religion exclusively for about a half century.
It seems to me you're just name dropping famous people in order to sound smart, without actually knowing much about them.
You claim Ghazali "threw science and scientific investigation out the window". I just cannot see how you'd come to this conclusion given that his work into the nature of truth and certainty (best gleaned from his book "Deliverance from Error") contributed to the development of the scientific method as we know it today. He himself was an accomplished mathematician, and drew heavily on mathematics in his works. I have no idea where you get your views from, but they just aren't even close to reflecting what Ghazali was all about. There's a reasonably good movie about his life called "The Alchemist of Happiness" in which Abdul Hakim Murad explains Ghazali's affinity for science, objectivity, reason and mathematics.
Ghazali did not "replace science with sufism", what he did was explained why they two were not in conflict. He did this with such efficacy, that many subsequent Muslim scientists were, in addition to their formidable academic achievements, also accomplished students of tasawwuf.
If you want to critique Ghazali, read his work. They're almost all available in English, with very high quality translations. I think you'll find that Neil Tyson has not the faintest idea what on Earth he's talking about.
Sadly, I don't hold out hope that you'll actually go and get a copy of any of Ghazali's works. More likely, you'll just write off post (posted under my name, btw) and declare yourself to be correct, despite the total lack of any evidence supporting your position, other than second and third hand opinions from people who don't know what they are talking about.
Ghazali's work is available. You can get it on Amazon. There's no excuse for you to be relying on other people to feed you an opinion.
That would not be a problem if their goal is greater *relative* wealth and not greater *absolute* wealth. It would also not be a problem if the lowering of all boats is an intended consequence of a foreign power with significant domestic political influence.
FYI the Orwellian government in the UK was overthrown in elections in May.
BS. There will be no change in Orwellianism in either the UK or the US unless and until the entire system is reformed. Witness the total farce that is the "change" Obama brought in.
Shut down Gitmo? Bring the troops home? Curtailing the free pass that the corporate sector gets on the taxpayer's dollar?
Nothing changed. Nothing meaningful to US foreign and long term policy anyway. The UK will be the same. This is because the policy makers and power brokers are not the figureheads that you vote for.
Here in Australia, our prime minister Kevin Rudd just got ousted by, and I quote from most of the major news outlets, "power brokers behind the scenes", among whom is her de-facto partner. I don't know about anyone else, but that to me indicates just how much is controlled by the electorate, and how much is controlled by powerful lobbyists who the public do not vote for and never even see.
Bumping into someone accidentally is different from actively establishing communication with them. The other distinction to be made is that in your example, your wife driving past happens by chance. With the example in the summary, Hotmail reports your contact with your ex-GF to your wife, so its a certainty that all of your existing contacts know who you are in contact with.
Your example is about as relevant to this scenario as a tyrannosaurus chasing a field mouse.
Perhaps in some, but lets not forget that some FOSS projects are either the best, or very close to the best in their class. A few that come to mind: Apache, PostgreSQL, Linux, BSD, Asterisk, Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenSSH... and that's just a 10 second brainstorm. All of those are either clearly the best in their breed, or at least comparable to the top end product.
I think that remote anything should be opt-in by the user, or, in an enterprise setting, should be added on by the enterprise before distributing the units. I do not welcome the idea that *all* Android handsets will have remote add/remove package functionality out of the box, for all users.
Imagine the fun law enforcement and government agencies will have with this. Remote install app that silently forwards mic input to an eavesdropper.
Is there even a way to turn this feature off? I.e., lets say I buy a handset and I definitely do *not* want Google nuking my apps remotely or adding apps to my phone remotely without my knowledge.
This is the reason that I think the FOSS community should back MeeGo. It's the only *true* open source system out there that's open enough that the Many Eyeballs principle can be applied to, and that is open enough that we'll eventually see custom distros of the OS emerging.
I just love it how technoclowns brow-beat the Wii for being low power hardware. Out of the XBox 360, the PS3 and the Wii, which one has the most lowly hardware. Right. Now tell me, which one was the most profitable for its manufacturer?
Except that subterfuge really is just a method of waging war without the inconvenience of actually having to declare it. The US never sent troops to Chile, but that didn't stop millions from dying in the US sponsored dictatorship there during the 80s. More people died due to US interventions in Latin America than in most of the European wars, but other than a few scuffles, the US never actually declared war there.
Tell me, what is the worst that could be released on Wikileaks? Total schematics for the F35 aircraft along with source code? What would the Afghans do with it? Build one out of moistened sand? How about the Chinese? Trust me, the so-called free-world has nothing to fear from a poorly injection-molded plastic F35.
The military might of the US lies in its industrial output, not its secrets. Secrets only protect the US regime from its own population.
The simple fix, as others have pointed out before, is that any web browser should warn the user if the site certificate changes. Then you're at least safe at any site you've visited before.
And for that, we could do away with the entire silliness that is the SSL ecosystem, and simply tunnel HTTP over SSH. I've been advocating this for years.
Unlike some other "educated" countries, the people of Morocco have realized that some people in other countries speak different languages, and that you can't overcome this by simply talking at them with an increased volume and decreased speed.
Hey, we have the right, nay the DUTY to liberate their resources and use them for the benefit of the Afghan people by building McDonalds and Starbaucks there.
I like how everyone always says that the Chinese population are deceived by their government into a state of blissful ignorance. The USA has to have the best (or worst, depending on your perspective) "everything is fine, trust us" government in history. National debt stands at almost 90% of GDP. The US government will *never* be able to retire this debt, not in the lifetime of anyone alive today. Yet, it manages to still sell bonds on the bond market. It still funds public works through borrowing. It still bails out the very corporate sector that holds the majority of its debt. The US population still spends large amounts of credit card "money" on idiotic items that they don't need.
And nobody asks questions about a war that deepens this debt significantly every year.
How does nobody notice that the house you just built is on a train track and the freight train just appeared around the bend?
Slashdot Mirror
It's because there is a fungus that turns consumers into zombies.
GP may or may not have heard of Schrödinger...
I think he's trying to. He also seems naive enough to think that upper management have anything to do with things like design details. I bet he got a gigantic payout as a recompense for taking the fall for Apple.
The guy who should be taking the fall is Jobs, for putting aethetics before technical considerations in the team's mindset, and then insulting the intelligence of his customers by claiming that a) it's their fault for holding it wrong and b) that all other smartphones suffer the same problem when their own previous iPhones didn't.
Correct, but the controlled nature of the drug industry means that the only outlet for counterfeit drugs is the black market. It is highly unlikely that you will get counterfeit product from your local pharmacy. Anyone who buys their pharmaceuticals from the same guy their kids buy pot from deserves whatever outcome they get.
I do understand that the situation becomes more complex in the third world where access to legitimate product is more problematic and the regulatory infrastructure is much less developed, but this situation is more a political problem than a commercial one, and it does not shore up the ideological framework that underpins the modern patent and brand philosophy.
Yes, there should be rewards for genuine innovation and research costs need to be recouped. However, the exploitative results of the way the system is currently set up is unconscionable, and needs to be reviewed with an eye not only to profitability and commercial sustainability, but also to ethics and equity.
This "inside look" given to the ABC is just more PR spin to offset the iPhone 4 stink.
"Hey look how good our testing is. So you see, it *can't* be a product defect, it must be AT&T's network or a software glitch or somehow the fault of Nokia/RIM/Samsung. Can't be us, no siree, we have 'black labs' to do our exhaustive testing."
Aside from the WOOSH mentioned by the other posters, you also used "to" when you should have used "too".
As much as I hate using net-slang, the only word I can say that describes your efforts here is FAIL.
This is great news. Especially the "functionality would be disabled until you view the ad". MS had the "are you really truly sure you want to move this file?" dialogs, Apple will have the "Are you truly sure that you do not want to buy a 12 ounce can of Heinz Beans?".
I also think that Apple can't afford to not do this. They have been forced to reduce their prices on their hardware, eating away their margins. I don't think that they would be able to continue to provide the level of support as well as the heavyweight retail presence with margins continuing to fall. Ads would increase the value to the bottom line of each sale.
Apple's "easy for the average Joe" goal with their products works. Apple stuff is easy for simple users. I don't use a Mac or an iPhone, but have to accept that there are many for whom they are a good option. There are a large number of things that I hate Apple products for, the desktop environment that does not lend itself to heavy multitasking (from a user perspective), the absurdly militant device compatibility rules (can't get any data on or off your iPhone unless it goes through iTunes from the same PC you used to set it up) and the poorly organized layout which makes Spotlight the main way to access your files and programs. iAds will go a long way to adding to the annoyance that is the Apple experience.
Bring on the enforced ad watching.
Meeting chairman: Let's give these negotiations a break, for a while.
[Executives leave the room]
Sales team leader: Look guys, we haven't convinced them that we're the best guys for their production line. I think they recognize that our services are best of breed, but we still need to get it in the bag. They're in there, deliberating right now, about whether to go with us or the competition. Does anyone have any ideas how we can close the deal?
Sales team member 1: Well, I think we could highlight that we have a longer track record than the compet...
Sales team member (Running back into meeting room): LEEEEEROOOOOY JEEEEEENKIIIIINS!!!!!!
Or small quantities of nickel and tin alloy hammered into small circles.
I wrote about the problems in the Eurozone that arise from having conflicting monetary and fiscal policies in a blog entry linked to below. Basically put, the Eurozone forces member states to have materially identical monetary policies due to the unified currency and centralized state banking. Under such circumstances, nations are unable to compensate for national situations using fiscal policy alone, and their attempt to do so is a large part of what has landed Europe in the fiscal mess they're currently in.
http://www.mrnaz.com/?s=publish-blog&entryid=208
That ad-hominem was added after a fairly lengthy post including several points. It doesn't surprise me that you've decided to ignore them all and skip straight to the last line.
Just so as you know, Einstein was also deeply religious, he saw his study of the natural world as being an investigation into the methods of God. Given that you seem to think that he was less religious than Newton (if such a thing could be quantified) then you are once again mistaken about the nature of a person you are referring to.
Neil Tyson, may be good at what he does, but he is not a religious academic. Montgomery Watt (not that I consider his work to be of high value, but just so you know why I referenced him) on the other hand studied religion exclusively for about a half century.
It seems to me you're just name dropping famous people in order to sound smart, without actually knowing much about them.
You claim Ghazali "threw science and scientific investigation out the window". I just cannot see how you'd come to this conclusion given that his work into the nature of truth and certainty (best gleaned from his book "Deliverance from Error") contributed to the development of the scientific method as we know it today. He himself was an accomplished mathematician, and drew heavily on mathematics in his works. I have no idea where you get your views from, but they just aren't even close to reflecting what Ghazali was all about. There's a reasonably good movie about his life called "The Alchemist of Happiness" in which Abdul Hakim Murad explains Ghazali's affinity for science, objectivity, reason and mathematics.
Ghazali did not "replace science with sufism", what he did was explained why they two were not in conflict. He did this with such efficacy, that many subsequent Muslim scientists were, in addition to their formidable academic achievements, also accomplished students of tasawwuf.
If you want to critique Ghazali, read his work. They're almost all available in English, with very high quality translations. I think you'll find that Neil Tyson has not the faintest idea what on Earth he's talking about.
Sadly, I don't hold out hope that you'll actually go and get a copy of any of Ghazali's works. More likely, you'll just write off post (posted under my name, btw) and declare yourself to be correct, despite the total lack of any evidence supporting your position, other than second and third hand opinions from people who don't know what they are talking about.
Ghazali's work is available. You can get it on Amazon. There's no excuse for you to be relying on other people to feed you an opinion.
That would not be a problem if their goal is greater *relative* wealth and not greater *absolute* wealth.
It would also not be a problem if the lowering of all boats is an intended consequence of a foreign power with significant domestic political influence.
BS. There will be no change in Orwellianism in either the UK or the US unless and until the entire system is reformed. Witness the total farce that is the "change" Obama brought in.
Shut down Gitmo? Bring the troops home? Curtailing the free pass that the corporate sector gets on the taxpayer's dollar?
Nothing changed. Nothing meaningful to US foreign and long term policy anyway. The UK will be the same. This is because the policy makers and power brokers are not the figureheads that you vote for.
Here in Australia, our prime minister Kevin Rudd just got ousted by, and I quote from most of the major news outlets, "power brokers behind the scenes", among whom is her de-facto partner. I don't know about anyone else, but that to me indicates just how much is controlled by the electorate, and how much is controlled by powerful lobbyists who the public do not vote for and never even see.
Bumping into someone accidentally is different from actively establishing communication with them. The other distinction to be made is that in your example, your wife driving past happens by chance. With the example in the summary, Hotmail reports your contact with your ex-GF to your wife, so its a certainty that all of your existing contacts know who you are in contact with.
Your example is about as relevant to this scenario as a tyrannosaurus chasing a field mouse.
Perhaps in some, but lets not forget that some FOSS projects are either the best, or very close to the best in their class. A few that come to mind: Apache, PostgreSQL, Linux, BSD, Asterisk, Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenSSH... and that's just a 10 second brainstorm. All of those are either clearly the best in their breed, or at least comparable to the top end product.
I think that remote anything should be opt-in by the user, or, in an enterprise setting, should be added on by the enterprise before distributing the units. I do not welcome the idea that *all* Android handsets will have remote add/remove package functionality out of the box, for all users.
Imagine the fun law enforcement and government agencies will have with this. Remote install app that silently forwards mic input to an eavesdropper.
Is there even a way to turn this feature off? I.e., lets say I buy a handset and I definitely do *not* want Google nuking my apps remotely or adding apps to my phone remotely without my knowledge.
This is the reason that I think the FOSS community should back MeeGo. It's the only *true* open source system out there that's open enough that the Many Eyeballs principle can be applied to, and that is open enough that we'll eventually see custom distros of the OS emerging.
I just love it how technoclowns brow-beat the Wii for being low power hardware. Out of the XBox 360, the PS3 and the Wii, which one has the most lowly hardware. Right. Now tell me, which one was the most profitable for its manufacturer?
Yea, that's what I thought.
Except that subterfuge really is just a method of waging war without the inconvenience of actually having to declare it. The US never sent troops to Chile, but that didn't stop millions from dying in the US sponsored dictatorship there during the 80s. More people died due to US interventions in Latin America than in most of the European wars, but other than a few scuffles, the US never actually declared war there.
Tell me, what is the worst that could be released on Wikileaks? Total schematics for the F35 aircraft along with source code? What would the Afghans do with it? Build one out of moistened sand? How about the Chinese? Trust me, the so-called free-world has nothing to fear from a poorly injection-molded plastic F35.
The military might of the US lies in its industrial output, not its secrets. Secrets only protect the US regime from its own population.
Or perhaps a bathtub in a motel.
And for that, we could do away with the entire silliness that is the SSL ecosystem, and simply tunnel HTTP over SSH. I've been advocating this for years.
Unlike some other "educated" countries, the people of Morocco have realized that some people in other countries speak different languages, and that you can't overcome this by simply talking at them with an increased volume and decreased speed.
Doesn't Facebook already do that pretty well?
Hey, we have the right, nay the DUTY to liberate their resources and use them for the benefit of the Afghan people by building McDonalds and Starbaucks there.
I like how everyone always says that the Chinese population are deceived by their government into a state of blissful ignorance. The USA has to have the best (or worst, depending on your perspective) "everything is fine, trust us" government in history. National debt stands at almost 90% of GDP. The US government will *never* be able to retire this debt, not in the lifetime of anyone alive today. Yet, it manages to still sell bonds on the bond market. It still funds public works through borrowing. It still bails out the very corporate sector that holds the majority of its debt. The US population still spends large amounts of credit card "money" on idiotic items that they don't need.
And nobody asks questions about a war that deepens this debt significantly every year.
How does nobody notice that the house you just built is on a train track and the freight train just appeared around the bend?
The mind boggles.