I'm just going t go out on a limb here and say as long as MABEL is out on a limb -- a lateral stabilization arm -- it's not "running', it's just doing the same thing a tank tread does: pushing hardware around by leverage. And yes, tank treads can propel the tank off the ground. See any fun M1A1 demo video.
Love to see this re-posted when (a) the only connection to the host computer is RF, and (b), the thing has feet so that it won't fencepost itself into the first soft ground it comes to (or damage sidewalks, etc.)
I mean really... this is not 'running'; the idea isn't separable from independent balance. Otherwise waterwheels 'run'.
Google+ is a non-starter for me until/unless they stop locking out people who need to be anonymous. Facebook is too, but I never had any expectation that Facebook would do anything right -- Google, frankly, I would like to see get back to at least attempting to "do no evil."
You may not need a government to provide for your defense, but you're still paying for it.
Yes, but I actually have something useful -- something I can actually defend myself with; something that adds to my net value instead of subtracting from it; something that adds to my safety instead of to the nation's ability to act as an unauthorized extra-border policeman at my expense; something I can sell, lend, lease, will onward, etc. The US defense mechanism hasn't done anything useful for me or my family with the exception of activity in WWII, and I get *zero* out of it, while it takes and takes and takes. Every other war/military action since WWII has either been completely unjustified, or prosecuted in a moronic, highly wasteful fashion.
The floating thing itself... I don't see how that can be made affordable. I can see a culture set up to run a *great* deal more efficiently than the US is run... but the floaty thing... honestly, I think the first rogue wave or significant storm would trash the whole thing.
I disagree strongly that lawyers serve a useful function in a sane legal system (which we have nothing even close to.) But we're thoroughly infected with them -- and insane amounts of incredibly bad law -- nothing can be done. That doesn't stop me from liking the idea, tho.:)
Welfare and much of the rest would become charity, which you would still pay for.
Again, there's a reasonable and cost-effective and motivational way to manage welfare, and the US doesn't approach it that way, and never will. A new society would have a chance to do it better - much better. I'd like to see it tried.
Why would they not "[have] to support a ridiculous number of government services?"
WRT to government supplied services, you don't need "home inspectors", you don't need parks and "park services", you don't need "monuments", you don't need a "capital building", you don't need a "mint", you don't need a police force, you don't need 99% of the courts or laws, you don't need lawyers, you don't need fish and wildlife police, you don't need a border patrol, you don't need an FAA, a department of education, an IRS, a DEA, an FBI, a CIA, an NSA, or an FCC. I could go on, but surely you see my point. Even if you think one or two of those *will* be needed (I doubt it), most of them are superfluous at best. If you want to know why I think these wouldn't be needed, just ask.
Look at the US budget: ~1/4 is social services (unlikely in a libertarian context), ~1/4 is public military (unlikely in a libertarian context.) Even if nothing else changed, just those two cut the tax load in half. but a lot more would change.
And of course, feel free to disagree -- I find the idea fascinating. Aside from the physical problems (I don't think such an artificial floating community is feasible in the assembly cost / structural integrity sense), the idea of a place where you're actually responsible for what you do and the consequences of what you do... that's very appealing to me. There are downsides, but cost of government isn't one of them. And considering how much we pay here, that should help accelerate the economy.
And why would I, enlightened Libertarian individual, go to all the expense to purchase, maintain, and man, a full missile emplacement all by my lonesome if the whole vessel is going to benefit?
Why does Bill Gates pay (a lot!) for work against aids? Why do I pay to maintain a cat shelter out here in the wilds of Montana? Why do the folks on the Sea Shepherd chase Japanese whalers around? Why do militias form? See, these things are happening all around you, even in the current environment. Libertarians, having actually taken the time to realize that personal responsibility has integral worth, are also more likely to take collective responsibility more seriously and implement the *important* parts of it, instead of trying to build bridges to nowhere, monuments to dead presidents, and Yet Another Public Building With Columns. And because they spend less on the latter, they should have more left to do the former. IMHO.
That'd all be fine, except this isn't a representative (or constitutional) democracy and never has been, despite the obvious intent of the founders; there is no effective vector to modify the government's behavior; others depend upon me, so decisions I make have to take them into account; And finally, I'll "remember" that democracy is better the day we actually try it (or a democratic republic, or a constitutional republic.) Currently, we (here in the US) live in a tyrannical corporate oligarchy. They control everything through wholly subservient legislative and judicial puppets. What rights we have a skin deep and situationally variable, at best. And they have not included the right -- or ability -- to modify the system in almost a hundred years. We don't even have the rights explicitly assigned to us in the government's authorizing documentation... that's because they pay little to no attention to it these days.
More, or the earlier point about hurricanes (or just major storms, or a single rouge wave) would destroy the place within a very short time. Until you've seen what a 100 foot wave can do (snap a supertanker in half like a twig, for instance), you have no idea what kind of engineering is required for structural survival on the surface. And living subsurface -- or submersible capability to the point where you're below the weather... also more than hundreds of millions.
Frankly, I would expect a libertarian enclave to be considerably better armed than a group of pirates. Partly because without having to support a ridiculous number of government services, they'd have more money left from whatever earnings they managed to achieve; partly because no decent libertarian enclave would have a problem with individuals and groups owning anything from pocket knives to full on missile emplacements; and partly because libertarians are simply more inclined to defend themselves than have a third party do it for them, seeing as how third party defense hasn't worked out that well for internal national affairs (police... when seconds count, they're only minutes away!)
And in what way is trade "abusively exploitive to labor"?
When the government "trades" your money for the "service" of not jailing you, and then uses said money to do things you do not support, believe are wrong, or in some way actually uses the money against you. For example, the USG exploits my labor to prosecute the drug war; to create and enforce unconstitutional law; to put troops on the ground in countries that I have no business or social interest in, nor any belief in the myths they try to sell that the country has any similar interest; to give oil companies (and others) "breaks" and "advantages" they have no need of.... etc.
In doing these things, I regard them as thieves; further, thieves with extremely evil agendas.
You know, if it wasn't for the drug war, the porpoises wouldn't be so darned intense all the time. A little of the fragrant weed goes a long way towards cooling one's blowhole.
Some of them may want to edit some photos, or maybe even edit a video. For both applications modern gear is pretty much overkill already.
[wakes up] Eh? What? I have an 8-core, 3 GHz machine with lots-o-ram and a wide, fast main memory bus and trust me, it isn't even close to fast enough to satisfactorily edit RAW (~48-bit) photos from a Canon 50D or a 5DmkII or a whole range of cameras with similar (or higher) resolutions. I have Photoshop, Aperture, Lightroom, Gimp and a fair handful of others. Camera resolution overran CPU capability some time ago, and it's only getting worse, since the processors are no longer significantly increasing the speed they can move information in and out of main memory (none of these cameras makes images that will fit into a CPU cache, even if they had the whole thing to themselves.) Now, if you're just talking about editing some crappy web-resolution jpeg in 24 bits, well, yeah, but.... ew.
I think it's fair to say I'm an extrovert -- I have a blog where I post things of interest to me and answer questions; I welcome decent quality remarks (I simply remove low-level gibbering before it ever sees the light of day), I have yet another personal website from the pre-blog days, I've released a fair number of PD software efforts (not GPL... GPL is da debbil), and I have a healthy social life at home. I stay in contact with my old friends (and I always have... I tend not to lose track of people I think are worth my time.) I run the key genealogy site for my family (thousands of detailed records and some very neat tech, too), have some free service efforts like this one... and you can find my posts all over the web, including here, I'm not in the least afraid to put my opinion out there (laughs a bit ruefully...)
And I have zero interest in joining facebook. I kind of like the idea of Google's "circles", but I have zero interest in joining them, either. Part of it is the low quality of interaction I've seen on facebook (I think Google might be able to avoid this with those circles, but I'm just guessing... no experience); but the most important part of it is being annoyed, and I mean really annoyed, that these sites won't "allow" anonymity, which I consider a cornerstone of both free speech and free association. Facebook also has some items in their TOS that I find distasteful and unnecessary, part of the "save the children" witch-hunt. I've not (yet) seen that from Google, though frankly I expect to any day now.
It's also fair to say I enjoy high self-esteem. But that's not why I avoid facebook and Google+. I avoid them because in ways important to me, I see them as damaging society, ostracizing and marginalizing people who might very well make important social use of the service. That's their right, but it is also mine to say "I'm not going there under those conditions."
"Superior" unless "in every way" must be specified how (or be subjective with ups and downs). For products, market response is often the metric. For that metric, Apple's losing to Android.
Market response? Wait. Apple only sold through ATT for quite some time. That means I, as a Verizon customer, couldn't even GET an iPhone. And no, ATT doesn't offer service here. No option at all, period. My response was indeed to buy an Android, although this was not what I actually wanted to "consume", having already become familiar with the iPod touch.
My old Marantz is a far better receiver than my old radio shack receiver; but radio shack sold far more receivers. Likewise, a Lamborghini is a far better vehicle than a Pontiac Sunbird. Sales volume is a perfectly valid measure of popularity; but superiority? No.
I'm pretty sure you'll find a lot of Androids were sold under these "can't get an iPhone" conditions. Apple's choice to use only ATT mystifies (and frustrates) me to this day, but it in no way reflects upon the actual functionality of the iPhone.
But in the end, I ended up with both Android and IOS. So I can compare how useful they are to me quite easily. And frankly, even though the Android machine (a Motorola Droid) is a phone and the iPod/iPad are not, the IOS devices win easily -- the software is better, operates more smoothly, gets in the way less, and there is a great deal more useful stuff overall available to me under IOS. Yes, it is subjective -- what is useful to me may not be useful to you -- but for me, Apple is not only the maker of a superior product, but the maker of a far superior product. I carry the Droid because it's a phone. But I also always carry an IOS device, because the Droid just doesn't cut it for me outside the "phone zone." When the phone contract is up, the Droid is going bye-bye.
1) Do you think consumers (including iPhone users) have anything to gain from the (supposed) death of Android?
Possibly. Depends mostly upon how Apple acts if that were to happen. Would they stop innovating? I doubt it, personally. But that's the wrong question anyway. The right question is, does Apple have anything to gain from the death of Android, and the answer to that is a resounding yes. Apple is in business to make money; as long as they don't violate the law, they are free to pursue any strategy they like to accomplish this.
2) Do you think a company that tries to stiffle (sic) the development and widespread deployment of new technologies deserves to be rewarded by consumers?
I think your question is ridiculous. Apple presumably has these patents because it already has, and may very well deploy, or has already deployed, these technologies. What they're doing is saying, hey, we own the rights to these [whatevers], and consequently, you don't get to use them, or you must pay for the privilege. Google is just as able to do the same thing, that's how the business of making electronics is pursued at present.
I don't like the patent system very much, but it is part of the basic structure of US society, even to the point of being addressed in the constitution. Does it need reform? Sure. But until or unless it *is* reformed, I am certainly not inclined to think that companies that act within the legal bounds presented to them are in any way acting wrongly.
So in a country where anyone can own a firearm you want to stop the police from checking that someone they've just arrested isn't carrying one?
I think you'll find that removing this step of the arrest is going to lead to a lot of dead cops.
What you're trying to do here is make an argument for the claim "well, I know you said SHALL NOT, but we need to"; that case is addressed by article five, and I am ALL FOR the idea that if the government needs a particular power, that they USE article five. I am NOT for the government just taking a power because they think they need it. This is because if they can take a power based on their estimation of need, regardless of what the constitution says, then there is NO POWER THEY CANNOT TAKE -- and in fact, we are seeing exactly that kind of behavior from the government; they make any law they like and CONTINUALLY violate the constitutional restrictions put on them as a condition of governance.
As far as I'm concerned, if the government wants to search someone, they need a warrant. That's because that's what the constitution says. There are no exceptions to the rule in the constitution, and therefore, there are no exceptions available to the government.
Further: No reasonable person has ever said that the constitution was a mechanism to make it easy to govern. In fact, if you read the relevant literature from the time, they were looking to restrict government as much as they possibly could.
Yet they *did* provide article five, amendment; so the door is not entirely closed. But they must use that door. Right now, they're coming in the window, and like anyone who enters through the window with intent to steal something not freely given, they should be stopped and punished.
I'm not defending unreasonable searches in general, but a search for firearms, knives etc. during an arrest is only common sense and a necessity for the police to protect themselves.
Fine. Get a warrant, make the arrest. Should take just a few minutes, especially today with faxes and printers and networks. "I have a warrant for your arrest. Here it is. Do you have any weapons? (subject answers yes, right here, or no) This warrant includes permission to search you for unrevealed weapons. I am now going to search you." Where's the problem?
If I say I am enabling you to govern, then I say as a condition of this enabling, you SHALL NOT search without a warrant, and certain conditions must obtain for you to get one, where do you get off saying "oh, but I can search without a warrant if I *need* to"?????
Furthermore, if I say to you, but if you need a power you don't have, you can use this process here called amendment by ASKING THE PEOPLE if you can have it.... and then you DO NOT USE THAT PROCESS, but you still say "oh, but I can still search without a warrant if I *need* to"...
You know what that means? That means you are ignoring what you have been told. That means you have violated one of the conditions that enabled you to govern. That means you are using unauthorized power; that means the conditions under which you were permitted to govern are no longer in place.
So an officer can't arrest you and search you without a warrant is that what you are claiming?
What I'm telling you is that a search without a warrant isn't an authorized power of the government, and when it is performed, the government is acting outside the bounds of the agreement that says it is allowed to exist. I'm not saying it doesn't happen -- I'm saying it's wrong when it happens.
Did you miss that word Unreasonable in your little cut and past job?
No. In fact, I pointed it out. 2nd para after the "little cut and paste job." But apparently, you did miss it. "Unreasonable" is fully defined for the case of government search right there in the 4th amendment. Read it. Then read it again. WTF do you think they're talking about when they define these requirements? When the government goes and gets an ice cream cone? No, they're talking about what makes the search reasonable. Now READ it and perhaps you'll finally grasp it,
What you're describing, however, is the unauthorized actions of a government agency out of control. Not the legal conditions from which a presumed authorization arises. We already know the cops are acting as defacto thugs; what needs to be established is the basis for their actions. Without a legal basis, they're no different than muggers with overwhelming power -- and should be treated similarly.
The Fourth Amendment allows a number of exemptions from the general rule that a warrant is needed to search. One of these exemptions is a search incident to an arrest.
Let's start here. Show me where in the 4th amendment this "allowance" is made. Here it is, in its entirety:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I've highlighted a critical section for your benefit.
So get back to me when you find it. I won't hold my breath.
Exactly wrong. Unreasonable isn't slippery at all, at least, not in the case of search. It's defined right in the 4th amendment, quite specifically. Go read it.
Also, the courts have no authority to abrogate the meaning of the 4th amendment. Article three awards the power to judge guilty or not; it does not award the power to alter. That is limited to article five. This is simply the government acting out of the bounds of its authorization, exerting, in this case, power that was explicitly forbidden to it.
Police actually don't need a warrant to search someone upon arrest. Nor do you have the right to refuse a search upon arrest.
Actually, police DO need a warrant to search a US citizen's person, home, papers or effects. The 4th amendment is quite specific:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Also, the 14th amendment extends this restraint from the federal to the state governments. That covers every government agency from the local police to the forest service to the secret service.
So, no unreasonable search; and a reasonable search consists of probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, which causes issuance of the search warrant, which then authorizes a search -- but only for the items named in the warrant. No "fishing expeditions."
The whole "police can search" thing is the result of congressional and judicial malfeasance and really, really bad education and apathy on the part of the citizens; the government was never authorized to perform these kinds of searches; it would take a constitutional amendment to create a valid authorization, because as is, the act is forbidden to them.
Remember: The constitution is the authorizing document for the US government. That's the basis for legitimate government power. There is no other basis, and all other power exercised by the government is usurped and unauthorized. While powers unspoken may be found in general terms in various parts of the constitution, there are certain things -- searches among them -- that are absolutely forbidden to them and so not up for any kind of argument at all. This is not a monarchy; it is a constitutional republic. The second you say "oh, they don't have to pay attention to that old piece of paper", you've just accepted a new form of government, one with absolutely unlimited power. Unfortunately, a lot of people are just that stupid.
Lastly, if the government needs a new (or currently forbidden) power -- which searching without a warrant certainly is -- there is a mechanism provided for them to ask for it; it's is article five, amendment. Outside of that, there is absolutely no way for them to legitimately obtain the power to search without issuance of warrant, subsequent to probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.
Unauthorized power: government out of control; citizens bewildered by government deception and official malfeasance.
The IOS constellation, while made of very nice hardware products, isn't succeeding, IMHO, on the basis of the hardware. It is succeeding on the basis of a far better collection of application software and the outstanding underlying tech in IOS (not at all the same as the exposed UI.) That they are adding user-oriented features to IOS (and hopefully to the hardware, I have a good sized list of hardware improvements I'd like to see implemented), is neither a surprise or a definitive indication of where they sit in the market vis-a-vis Android. Also worth mentioning is that IOS is objc-based, while Android has, in my estimation, a huge disadvantage by going with massively slower and clunkier underlying tech, specifically Java.
We own both a droid and a iPod touch; the touch is easily the more useful unit because the apps are *really* really good. We've also got an Entourage pocket edge and iPads, and a Kindle. The iPad wins hands down -- and it's the apps again. The Pocket Edge has amazing display capability with both e-ink and lcd; and it's a nice Android, etc., but even when it was fully supported, the apps just didn't cut it. The Kindle... just a reader, and frankly, I like the iPad better because it isn't *just* a reader, but it's just as good a reader, and then some -- full color, darkness capable, much faster display, no nasty inversion on every page flip, and yep... all those apps right there, ready to use. We use the continue droid because its a phone, that's all.
I don't think very highly of Apple, frankly; and I don't think highly of Apple management at all. But being honest, these are better products at the moment. Nor am I in any way in favor of patents, either software or hardware. That still doesn't mean that presently, using patents to beat on the opposition isn't an effective strategy. It is. No way around it. Nor is it a required condition that Apple be behind in the marketplace in order to bring opposition to the Android product lines via patent litigation. That's just an effective business practice, near as I can tell.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm just going t go out on a limb here and say as long as MABEL is out on a limb -- a lateral stabilization arm -- it's not "running', it's just doing the same thing a tank tread does: pushing hardware around by leverage. And yes, tank treads can propel the tank off the ground. See any fun M1A1 demo video.
Love to see this re-posted when (a) the only connection to the host computer is RF, and (b), the thing has feet so that it won't fencepost itself into the first soft ground it comes to (or damage sidewalks, etc.)
I mean really... this is not 'running'; the idea isn't separable from independent balance. Otherwise waterwheels 'run'.
Google+ is a non-starter for me until/unless they stop locking out people who need to be anonymous. Facebook is too, but I never had any expectation that Facebook would do anything right -- Google, frankly, I would like to see get back to at least attempting to "do no evil."
Yes, but I actually have something useful -- something I can actually defend myself with; something that adds to my net value instead of subtracting from it; something that adds to my safety instead of to the nation's ability to act as an unauthorized extra-border policeman at my expense; something I can sell, lend, lease, will onward, etc. The US defense mechanism hasn't done anything useful for me or my family with the exception of activity in WWII, and I get *zero* out of it, while it takes and takes and takes. Every other war/military action since WWII has either been completely unjustified, or prosecuted in a moronic, highly wasteful fashion.
The floating thing itself... I don't see how that can be made affordable. I can see a culture set up to run a *great* deal more efficiently than the US is run... but the floaty thing... honestly, I think the first rogue wave or significant storm would trash the whole thing.
I disagree strongly that lawyers serve a useful function in a sane legal system (which we have nothing even close to.) But we're thoroughly infected with them -- and insane amounts of incredibly bad law -- nothing can be done. That doesn't stop me from liking the idea, tho. :)
Again, there's a reasonable and cost-effective and motivational way to manage welfare, and the US doesn't approach it that way, and never will. A new society would have a chance to do it better - much better. I'd like to see it tried.
WRT to government supplied services, you don't need "home inspectors", you don't need parks and "park services", you don't need "monuments", you don't need a "capital building", you don't need a "mint", you don't need a police force, you don't need 99% of the courts or laws, you don't need lawyers, you don't need fish and wildlife police, you don't need a border patrol, you don't need an FAA, a department of education, an IRS, a DEA, an FBI, a CIA, an NSA, or an FCC. I could go on, but surely you see my point. Even if you think one or two of those *will* be needed (I doubt it), most of them are superfluous at best. If you want to know why I think these wouldn't be needed, just ask.
Look at the US budget: ~1/4 is social services (unlikely in a libertarian context), ~1/4 is public military (unlikely in a libertarian context.) Even if nothing else changed, just those two cut the tax load in half. but a lot more would change.
And of course, feel free to disagree -- I find the idea fascinating. Aside from the physical problems (I don't think such an artificial floating community is feasible in the assembly cost / structural integrity sense), the idea of a place where you're actually responsible for what you do and the consequences of what you do... that's very appealing to me. There are downsides, but cost of government isn't one of them. And considering how much we pay here, that should help accelerate the economy.
Why does Bill Gates pay (a lot!) for work against aids? Why do I pay to maintain a cat shelter out here in the wilds of Montana? Why do the folks on the Sea Shepherd chase Japanese whalers around? Why do militias form? See, these things are happening all around you, even in the current environment. Libertarians, having actually taken the time to realize that personal responsibility has integral worth, are also more likely to take collective responsibility more seriously and implement the *important* parts of it, instead of trying to build bridges to nowhere, monuments to dead presidents, and Yet Another Public Building With Columns. And because they spend less on the latter, they should have more left to do the former. IMHO.
You: Hello, Bomb squad?
Teh Bomb Squad: Yes, how can we help?
You: I think there's a bomb here!
Teh Bomb Squad: What's the weather like?
You: Overcast and snowing. And it's night.
Teh Bomb Squad: You're gonna die.
SMP for image processing -- particularly most DSLR image adjustment tasks -- isn't difficult at all. I write that stuff for a living.
That'd all be fine, except this isn't a representative (or constitutional) democracy and never has been, despite the obvious intent of the founders; there is no effective vector to modify the government's behavior; others depend upon me, so decisions I make have to take them into account; And finally, I'll "remember" that democracy is better the day we actually try it (or a democratic republic, or a constitutional republic.) Currently, we (here in the US) live in a tyrannical corporate oligarchy. They control everything through wholly subservient legislative and judicial puppets. What rights we have a skin deep and situationally variable, at best. And they have not included the right -- or ability -- to modify the system in almost a hundred years. We don't even have the rights explicitly assigned to us in the government's authorizing documentation... that's because they pay little to no attention to it these days.
More, or the earlier point about hurricanes (or just major storms, or a single rouge wave) would destroy the place within a very short time. Until you've seen what a 100 foot wave can do (snap a supertanker in half like a twig, for instance), you have no idea what kind of engineering is required for structural survival on the surface. And living subsurface -- or submersible capability to the point where you're below the weather... also more than hundreds of millions.
Not gonna happen.
Frankly, I would expect a libertarian enclave to be considerably better armed than a group of pirates. Partly because without having to support a ridiculous number of government services, they'd have more money left from whatever earnings they managed to achieve; partly because no decent libertarian enclave would have a problem with individuals and groups owning anything from pocket knives to full on missile emplacements; and partly because libertarians are simply more inclined to defend themselves than have a third party do it for them, seeing as how third party defense hasn't worked out that well for internal national affairs (police... when seconds count, they're only minutes away!)
When the government "trades" your money for the "service" of not jailing you, and then uses said money to do things you do not support, believe are wrong, or in some way actually uses the money against you. For example, the USG exploits my labor to prosecute the drug war; to create and enforce unconstitutional law; to put troops on the ground in countries that I have no business or social interest in, nor any belief in the myths they try to sell that the country has any similar interest; to give oil companies (and others) "breaks" and "advantages" they have no need of.... etc.
In doing these things, I regard them as thieves; further, thieves with extremely evil agendas.
You know, if it wasn't for the drug war, the porpoises wouldn't be so darned intense all the time. A little of the fragrant weed goes a long way towards cooling one's blowhole.
[wakes up] Eh? What? I have an 8-core, 3 GHz machine with lots-o-ram and a wide, fast main memory bus and trust me, it isn't even close to fast enough to satisfactorily edit RAW (~48-bit) photos from a Canon 50D or a 5DmkII or a whole range of cameras with similar (or higher) resolutions. I have Photoshop, Aperture, Lightroom, Gimp and a fair handful of others. Camera resolution overran CPU capability some time ago, and it's only getting worse, since the processors are no longer significantly increasing the speed they can move information in and out of main memory (none of these cameras makes images that will fit into a CPU cache, even if they had the whole thing to themselves.) Now, if you're just talking about editing some crappy web-resolution jpeg in 24 bits, well, yeah, but.... ew.
I think it's fair to say I'm an extrovert -- I have a blog where I post things of interest to me and answer questions; I welcome decent quality remarks (I simply remove low-level gibbering before it ever sees the light of day), I have yet another personal website from the pre-blog days, I've released a fair number of PD software efforts (not GPL... GPL is da debbil), and I have a healthy social life at home. I stay in contact with my old friends (and I always have... I tend not to lose track of people I think are worth my time.) I run the key genealogy site for my family (thousands of detailed records and some very neat tech, too), have some free service efforts like this one... and you can find my posts all over the web, including here, I'm not in the least afraid to put my opinion out there (laughs a bit ruefully...)
And I have zero interest in joining facebook. I kind of like the idea of Google's "circles", but I have zero interest in joining them, either. Part of it is the low quality of interaction I've seen on facebook (I think Google might be able to avoid this with those circles, but I'm just guessing... no experience); but the most important part of it is being annoyed, and I mean really annoyed, that these sites won't "allow" anonymity, which I consider a cornerstone of both free speech and free association. Facebook also has some items in their TOS that I find distasteful and unnecessary, part of the "save the children" witch-hunt. I've not (yet) seen that from Google, though frankly I expect to any day now.
It's also fair to say I enjoy high self-esteem. But that's not why I avoid facebook and Google+. I avoid them because in ways important to me, I see them as damaging society, ostracizing and marginalizing people who might very well make important social use of the service. That's their right, but it is also mine to say "I'm not going there under those conditions."
It is unauthorized power. Get a warrant, make the arrest. Otherwise, the officer is doing it wrong, and they should be at risk from outraged citizens.
Market response? Wait. Apple only sold through ATT for quite some time. That means I, as a Verizon customer, couldn't even GET an iPhone. And no, ATT doesn't offer service here. No option at all, period. My response was indeed to buy an Android, although this was not what I actually wanted to "consume", having already become familiar with the iPod touch.
My old Marantz is a far better receiver than my old radio shack receiver; but radio shack sold far more receivers. Likewise, a Lamborghini is a far better vehicle than a Pontiac Sunbird. Sales volume is a perfectly valid measure of popularity; but superiority? No.
I'm pretty sure you'll find a lot of Androids were sold under these "can't get an iPhone" conditions. Apple's choice to use only ATT mystifies (and frustrates) me to this day, but it in no way reflects upon the actual functionality of the iPhone.
But in the end, I ended up with both Android and IOS. So I can compare how useful they are to me quite easily. And frankly, even though the Android machine (a Motorola Droid) is a phone and the iPod/iPad are not, the IOS devices win easily -- the software is better, operates more smoothly, gets in the way less, and there is a great deal more useful stuff overall available to me under IOS. Yes, it is subjective -- what is useful to me may not be useful to you -- but for me, Apple is not only the maker of a superior product, but the maker of a far superior product. I carry the Droid because it's a phone. But I also always carry an IOS device, because the Droid just doesn't cut it for me outside the "phone zone." When the phone contract is up, the Droid is going bye-bye.
Possibly. Depends mostly upon how Apple acts if that were to happen. Would they stop innovating? I doubt it, personally. But that's the wrong question anyway. The right question is, does Apple have anything to gain from the death of Android, and the answer to that is a resounding yes. Apple is in business to make money; as long as they don't violate the law, they are free to pursue any strategy they like to accomplish this.
I think your question is ridiculous. Apple presumably has these patents because it already has, and may very well deploy, or has already deployed, these technologies. What they're doing is saying, hey, we own the rights to these [whatevers], and consequently, you don't get to use them, or you must pay for the privilege. Google is just as able to do the same thing, that's how the business of making electronics is pursued at present.
I don't like the patent system very much, but it is part of the basic structure of US society, even to the point of being addressed in the constitution. Does it need reform? Sure. But until or unless it *is* reformed, I am certainly not inclined to think that companies that act within the legal bounds presented to them are in any way acting wrongly.
What you're trying to do here is make an argument for the claim "well, I know you said SHALL NOT, but we need to"; that case is addressed by article five, and I am ALL FOR the idea that if the government needs a particular power, that they USE article five. I am NOT for the government just taking a power because they think they need it. This is because if they can take a power based on their estimation of need, regardless of what the constitution says, then there is NO POWER THEY CANNOT TAKE -- and in fact, we are seeing exactly that kind of behavior from the government; they make any law they like and CONTINUALLY violate the constitutional restrictions put on them as a condition of governance.
As far as I'm concerned, if the government wants to search someone, they need a warrant. That's because that's what the constitution says. There are no exceptions to the rule in the constitution, and therefore, there are no exceptions available to the government.
Further: No reasonable person has ever said that the constitution was a mechanism to make it easy to govern. In fact, if you read the relevant literature from the time, they were looking to restrict government as much as they possibly could.
Yet they *did* provide article five, amendment; so the door is not entirely closed. But they must use that door. Right now, they're coming in the window, and like anyone who enters through the window with intent to steal something not freely given, they should be stopped and punished.
Fine. Get a warrant, make the arrest. Should take just a few minutes, especially today with faxes and printers and networks. "I have a warrant for your arrest. Here it is. Do you have any weapons? (subject answers yes, right here, or no) This warrant includes permission to search you for unrevealed weapons. I am now going to search you." Where's the problem?
If I say I am enabling you to govern, then I say as a condition of this enabling, you SHALL NOT search without a warrant, and certain conditions must obtain for you to get one, where do you get off saying "oh, but I can search without a warrant if I *need* to"?????
Furthermore, if I say to you, but if you need a power you don't have, you can use this process here called amendment by ASKING THE PEOPLE if you can have it.... and then you DO NOT USE THAT PROCESS, but you still say "oh, but I can still search without a warrant if I *need* to"...
You know what that means? That means you are ignoring what you have been told. That means you have violated one of the conditions that enabled you to govern. That means you are using unauthorized power; that means the conditions under which you were permitted to govern are no longer in place.
Do you get it now?
Why do you bring them up? Are you profiling?
What I'm telling you is that a search without a warrant isn't an authorized power of the government, and when it is performed, the government is acting outside the bounds of the agreement that says it is allowed to exist. I'm not saying it doesn't happen -- I'm saying it's wrong when it happens.
No. In fact, I pointed it out. 2nd para after the "little cut and paste job." But apparently, you did miss it. "Unreasonable" is fully defined for the case of government search right there in the 4th amendment. Read it. Then read it again. WTF do you think they're talking about when they define these requirements? When the government goes and gets an ice cream cone? No, they're talking about what makes the search reasonable. Now READ it and perhaps you'll finally grasp it,
What you're describing, however, is the unauthorized actions of a government agency out of control. Not the legal conditions from which a presumed authorization arises. We already know the cops are acting as defacto thugs; what needs to be established is the basis for their actions. Without a legal basis, they're no different than muggers with overwhelming power -- and should be treated similarly.
Let's start here. Show me where in the 4th amendment this "allowance" is made. Here it is, in its entirety:
I've highlighted a critical section for your benefit.
So get back to me when you find it. I won't hold my breath.
Exactly wrong. Unreasonable isn't slippery at all, at least, not in the case of search. It's defined right in the 4th amendment, quite specifically. Go read it.
Also, the courts have no authority to abrogate the meaning of the 4th amendment. Article three awards the power to judge guilty or not; it does not award the power to alter. That is limited to article five. This is simply the government acting out of the bounds of its authorization, exerting, in this case, power that was explicitly forbidden to it.
Actually, police DO need a warrant to search a US citizen's person, home, papers or effects. The 4th amendment is quite specific:
Also, the 14th amendment extends this restraint from the federal to the state governments. That covers every government agency from the local police to the forest service to the secret service.
So, no unreasonable search; and a reasonable search consists of probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, which causes issuance of the search warrant, which then authorizes a search -- but only for the items named in the warrant. No "fishing expeditions."
The whole "police can search" thing is the result of congressional and judicial malfeasance and really, really bad education and apathy on the part of the citizens; the government was never authorized to perform these kinds of searches; it would take a constitutional amendment to create a valid authorization, because as is, the act is forbidden to them.
Remember: The constitution is the authorizing document for the US government. That's the basis for legitimate government power. There is no other basis, and all other power exercised by the government is usurped and unauthorized. While powers unspoken may be found in general terms in various parts of the constitution, there are certain things -- searches among them -- that are absolutely forbidden to them and so not up for any kind of argument at all. This is not a monarchy; it is a constitutional republic. The second you say "oh, they don't have to pay attention to that old piece of paper", you've just accepted a new form of government, one with absolutely unlimited power. Unfortunately, a lot of people are just that stupid.
Lastly, if the government needs a new (or currently forbidden) power -- which searching without a warrant certainly is -- there is a mechanism provided for them to ask for it; it's is article five, amendment. Outside of that, there is absolutely no way for them to legitimately obtain the power to search without issuance of warrant, subsequent to probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.
Unauthorized power: government out of control; citizens bewildered by government deception and official malfeasance.
The IOS constellation, while made of very nice hardware products, isn't succeeding, IMHO, on the basis of the hardware. It is succeeding on the basis of a far better collection of application software and the outstanding underlying tech in IOS (not at all the same as the exposed UI.) That they are adding user-oriented features to IOS (and hopefully to the hardware, I have a good sized list of hardware improvements I'd like to see implemented), is neither a surprise or a definitive indication of where they sit in the market vis-a-vis Android. Also worth mentioning is that IOS is objc-based, while Android has, in my estimation, a huge disadvantage by going with massively slower and clunkier underlying tech, specifically Java.
We own both a droid and a iPod touch; the touch is easily the more useful unit because the apps are *really* really good. We've also got an Entourage pocket edge and iPads, and a Kindle. The iPad wins hands down -- and it's the apps again. The Pocket Edge has amazing display capability with both e-ink and lcd; and it's a nice Android, etc., but even when it was fully supported, the apps just didn't cut it. The Kindle... just a reader, and frankly, I like the iPad better because it isn't *just* a reader, but it's just as good a reader, and then some -- full color, darkness capable, much faster display, no nasty inversion on every page flip, and yep... all those apps right there, ready to use. We use the continue droid because its a phone, that's all.
I don't think very highly of Apple, frankly; and I don't think highly of Apple management at all. But being honest, these are better products at the moment. Nor am I in any way in favor of patents, either software or hardware. That still doesn't mean that presently, using patents to beat on the opposition isn't an effective strategy. It is. No way around it. Nor is it a required condition that Apple be behind in the marketplace in order to bring opposition to the Android product lines via patent litigation. That's just an effective business practice, near as I can tell.