They are also highly not interoperable. (Every single aspect of it: the App Store, the chargers, iTunes only running on OSX and Windows, DRMs, not supporting open formats,...)
That's right; iPods and iPads (and, I think, iPhones) work only with Windows and OSX. About 99% of the marketplace, in other words. That's just terrible, isn't it? It's almost as if they thought that someone who chose linux, that fortified bastion of the GPL, wasn't supportive of commercial, closed-source products, and so would have nothing to do with them!
A friend of mine bought an iPod because it looked cool, and after fighting to transfer song under Linux, sworn to never buy Apple again...
Um. Well, I run linux, OS X, and Windows. I bought my iPod so I could use the apps, and listen to music. Not so hot on videos. Anyway, when I bought it, I saw the "Windows and Mac" notice on the box, and for some reason didn't mentally translate that into "Mac, Windows and Linux" -- I guess I'm just an old fuddy-duddy that way. Anyway, what happened was, I wasn't disappointed by trying to make a product work under linux when I hadn't been told it would work that way.
Why you think corporations, long disadvantaged by the OSS/GPL mindset, would support linux... is really beyond me. Now, I like linux (that's why it's on my desk -- I write PD (not GPL) apps for it like this one) but speaking as a person who also sells commercial products, I have to tell you, linux is not an attractive platform for those same products.
I'm sure the majority of COBOL and FORTRAN programmers back in the '70s and '80s are still alive today, after all...
Oh, we're alive, all right, but as to how many of us have decent tech jobs currently... that's something else. We cost more to insure, we tend to be less "hip", and we don't have the energy levels of a 20-year old. Nor are we particularly enthused about working more than a normal workday. And these are the (essentially correct) assumptions us "oldies" face when applying for any job. There's not much need to adapt if you can't get hired, you know.
Kids don't care if they drive their parents into bankruptcy.
An actually comparable laptop isn't priced that differently. You're exaggerating, or leaving out many choices, in order to forge a false point. A macbook is $999. Sure, you can spend more, but getting a mac laptop... $999 and you're there. And when you have spent your $999, you have several things that you don't have with your windows machine:
OS X and the applications that run on it
You basically have *nix; as if you had linux
a consistent, fully supported hardware configuration
Also, you don't lose the ability to run windows: Parallels will put it in a window on the desktop, and bootcamp will turn the whole machine into a windows one.
(Oh and don't give me crap about Macs being better - the $1500 model actually had 1 GB less memory and 500 megahertz slower speed than the $450 Toshiba laptop.)
It's not that simple. It is well established that when you lay out feature for feature, and compare OS efficiencies performance wise, actual system speeds (bus, IO, etc., not just CPU clock) there is a decent correspondence at similar price levels.
And there is a very important thing that Windows users love to deny, but I witness each and every day: The typical Windows machine is constantly in need of attention for malware, driver problems, and so forth. Macs... aren't. You can debate the reasons until the sun goes down, but it doesn't change the fact that a Mac requires a lot less maintainance from its owner.
Lastly, there's a small (in terms of variety, huge otherwise), but highly popular pool of nominally machine-agnostic hardware that brings the brand (Apple) first to mind when it comes to ease of use, high utility, and yeah, "coolness": The iPod and iPad products. They often introduce people to Apple, and again, at the end of the day when the dust settles, these are superb products and they naturally predispose people - students, anyone - to think positively of Apple.
I'm not surprised your student considered your advice bad. I would too. And I'm quite well versed in all three operating systems; I develop for all three and have all three on my desktop. When people ask me for a recommendation, I suggest Apple, usually with the note that they are much easier to maintain and use, as well as highly reliable, so consequently they save effort and frustration as time passes. If it costs more, the question is, are those benefits worth it? I think they are. But then again, I consider my time valuable and that strongly colors my choices.
In 2000 the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct called for Clinton's disbarment, saying he lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
This is not impeachment; nor, in fact, neither do I consider it in any way an indication of criminality on the part of Clinton (or Lewinsky.) The second someone starts trying to coerce people to reveal adult, consensual sexual behavior, the person doing the asking is in the wrong.
If it is the legal system doing the asking, then the system is acting criminally in the sense that it is operating under laws created by legislators who have violated their oaths to uphold the constitution. And yes, that means I consider the government thoroughly criminal in some aspects of its actions. Clinton, however, is no more tarred as a criminal by this than you would be if I asked you if you had consensual sex with another adult and you lied. Some questions, no right can be found to ask. Doesn't matter who is doing the asking.
Even if you are clueless enough to buy the idea that the state has some imaginary right to knowledge of your personal, consensual choices -- this was a disciplinary action of a regulatory committee; not a criminal conviction of any kind. So he's still "all good", with the bonus of not having the stigma of being a lawyer for a while.
None of this, of course, addresses the question I asked the GP, which seems to assert that someone can only be considered a criminal if they've been through an official process. I'm still waiting for an explanation of that one.
So he took a plea and in effect admitted guilt and was fined.
No. He didn't "take a plea." There is neither a conviction or an "adjudication withheld" on his record. This all occurred outside the justice system. You my not like that, but it's a fact. You can, of course, call it anything you want. But it won't change it any.:)
I believe many of those people would still not want it repealed.
Exactly; it's a shadow of the bill I would have liked to see pass, it fails miserably to curb the insurance companies and in its current form it lacks a public option, and so if people ask be if I'm satisfied with the bill, I say "no", unreservedly.
But that is NOT a declaration that I would see it repealed: It's a step in the right direction, in my opinion, which is healthcare for all, just as I see education for all and fire departments for all as deeply necessary social services best provided in a centralized manner.
It is my hope that once it begins to have a significant effect, that we can tweak it (now that we have something to tweak!) into a better form.
I totally applaud Obama (who I disagree with on many other issues) for helping to get this much passed.
He has not been charged, tried or convicted for illegal wiretaps, so it can't be said that he "committed a crime".
So... your definition of "commit a crime" is, you have to be caught and tried? Not convicted (Clinton wasn't convicted, see below), but just put on trial?
So if some creep shows up at your house and sinks a knife into your wife, ending her life, then disappears into the night... never to be put on trial... he hasn't committed a crime?
I dunno, I've really got some problems with that. What is said knife-wielding miscreant's status, then, in your view? I would have said "wanted criminal" prior to your post, but am waiting for enlightenment.:)
The only president since 1975 to stand trial was Bill Clinton.
Do you understand that presidential impeachment is a two-stage process? First, the house indicts the individual, then the senate convicts, or not.
In Clinton's case, the house indicted him; the senate did not convict him.
Facebook isn't really the area of new risk. The area that's going to see the most impact if his prediction of "Internet Passports" is that of whistle-blowers, the non-violent but anti-establishment types, and of course the "criminal class", the never-to-be-forgiven felons, sex offenders and so on who are already locked out (by policy) of Facebook; people who are criminal by law such as adult drug users or polygamists who are actually engaged in consensual, informed, adult activities (which, IMHO, makes the government the actual criminal entity.) And I've probably forgotten some important other classes of people who need anonymity in order to pursue even normal Internet activity -- certainly if they're going to speak their minds in a hostile environment, whatever the current public opinion of them is. For some people, simply being atheist is enough to earn them severe censure in their own communities. Who are we to say they *must* be outed?
I really don't think it's a good idea to support repressive ideas like Schmidt's. Anonymity is what enables many of the "squeaky wheels" in the system; lose it, and you force those people truly underground, making even the act of speaking anonymously on the Internet a crime, instead of just a choice.
This is really a highly repressive idea -- it's not going too far to call it evil, frankly. An "Internet Passport" would be a very bad thing for the tatters of liberty and freedom we have left in the USA. For countries that have even less freedom, the Internet is the single gateway to freedom of expression that depends upon anonymity. Anonymous voices from repressive countries bring the world's attention to the plight of various individuals and classes; they really do make a difference. Should those people need an "Internet passport", their ability to speak out will be outright amputated.
How is this insightful? This is wishful thinking at best and naiveness at worst.
"Naiveness"? LOL... I guess it is cromulent, when you get right down to it. No need to embiggen the issue, though.
Well, anyway, look. If you have kids, you should probably fence your yard if you'd like to keep them out of hazards, like pools and dumpsters and manholes and so forth, presuming you've not yet trained them properly. This keeps your kids in an area you control and can "make safe." It is reasonably your responsibility to do this, because (wait for it) these are your kids, that you chose to have. Yours. Not anyone else's.
The other way around, that is, requiring everyone else to fence their yards in an attempt to sanitize the environment on your behalf, at direct expense to them, is economically unsound; assigns responsibility to entirely the wrong party; and is just generally stupid.
And yes, like a lot of laws are. I'm well aware that it represents the status quo; however, that is true for a lot of terminally stupid laws, like the drug laws; any law that forbids or limits an act of consensual, informed personal choice where physical and monetary effects are limited to those making said choice; blue laws; government support for superstition (in any form, including religion)... I could go on for quite a while.
Your approach seems to be "no one should object to the status quo." Mine is "when the status quo is harmful or could be bettered, one should speak up and put ideas on the table."
So between my, erm, "naiveness" (still LOL), and your head stuck quite far up your own ass, I'll keep doing it my way, thanks. Cheers.
You're welcome. WRT the view, yeah... but you have museums, fine dining, aquariums, water parks, theater, concerts, symphonies, conventions, a couple of centuries of fine architecture, the ocean, hills, caves, shopping, clubs and societies, modeling agencies, all manner of service industries and contractors, pizza delivery (and many different variations on pizza), grinder shops... I could go on for hours.
So while there are definitely a few benefits to living here, I think the envy is mostly on the other foot, as it were.
I drive to the coasts as often as I can so I may partake in all that goodness, but "often as I can" isn't really very often in the big picture... and I have business interests that both provide a reason to go, and usually manage to interfere with my fun once I get there.:)
Not close at all. At my latitude, this storm was a vague glow in the sky; I could see that it was there, and in this case, I could even see a little bit of the detail, but it's just at the edge of vision. The camera, however, can see far more than I can in terms of low light; I used a long exposure, and a wide, light-gathering aperture (like your eye's pupil open wide, only much wider), and turned up the sensitivity of the amplifier on camera's sensor to its maximum in order to capture what you see here.
To perceive it like this with the naked eye, either it would have to be much more intense (which does happen), or you would need to be further north and, as the lament above indicates, be enjoying a season during which the sun isn't hanging above you all night.
I've only seen auroral activity this intense with my naked eye twice in twenty years around here. But this solar cycle has been very active in terms of CMEs and general flashiness, and my hopes are high that it'll happen this time around. I wrote an application (PD, linux/OSX) that lets me see what the auroral and observing conditions are, and another one that texts me when conditions are right, so for the first time in my life, I'll not miss even one opportunity except by choice.
That's not an e-reader problem -- that's a social problem. e-readers would work fine on aircraft; aircraft are in no way inconvenienced by e-readers; there's no threat whatsoever. It's simply "terrorism theater" to keep the populace stirred up.
Just wait until someone packs something aboard an aircraft in/as a book; that'll be the end of your feeling of superiority.
If you actually read the thread, you may be able to inform yourself enough to make a comment worth responding to, you know. We're all holding our breath. Ok, not really. Once you've made an idiot post like that, we're not going to read your posts again.:o)
Except that you (& damned near everybody else including me) are likely violating the law unless you actually report and pay sales tax for your online purchases.
There's no sales tax in my state. So I've nothing to report. And as I don't live in your state, I really don't care what your state laws are.
Moderation points are awarded randomly, and meta-moderation doesn't work. That's most of what you need to know to understand slashdot moderation.
Consequently, the primary use of negative moderation on slashdot is as censorship, but it only hides posts from those who don't set their comment threshold to -1, so it's kind of a wash.
Though I have to say, the opportunities to torment the clueless moderators are endlessly entertaining.:)
Look, another moron moderator! Hey, cluetard, explaining how a mismoderated post fits into the topic at hand is not offtopic. Just so you know. Oh, I'm sorry, first language not English? Moderator powers awarded randomly? Just clicking the pretty buttons? Aw, how cute.:o)
Slashdot Mirror
That's right; iPods and iPads (and, I think, iPhones) work only with Windows and OSX. About 99% of the marketplace, in other words. That's just terrible, isn't it? It's almost as if they thought that someone who chose linux, that fortified bastion of the GPL, wasn't supportive of commercial, closed-source products, and so would have nothing to do with them!
Um. Well, I run linux, OS X, and Windows. I bought my iPod so I could use the apps, and listen to music. Not so hot on videos. Anyway, when I bought it, I saw the "Windows and Mac" notice on the box, and for some reason didn't mentally translate that into "Mac, Windows and Linux" -- I guess I'm just an old fuddy-duddy that way. Anyway, what happened was, I wasn't disappointed by trying to make a product work under linux when I hadn't been told it would work that way.
Why you think corporations, long disadvantaged by the OSS/GPL mindset, would support linux... is really beyond me. Now, I like linux (that's why it's on my desk -- I write PD (not GPL) apps for it like this one) but speaking as a person who also sells commercial products, I have to tell you, linux is not an attractive platform for those same products.
Yeah, actually, they do wait faster. They tend to wait more, too. :o)
Oh, we're alive, all right, but as to how many of us have decent tech jobs currently... that's something else. We cost more to insure, we tend to be less "hip", and we don't have the energy levels of a 20-year old. Nor are we particularly enthused about working more than a normal workday. And these are the (essentially correct) assumptions us "oldies" face when applying for any job. There's not much need to adapt if you can't get hired, you know.
An actually comparable laptop isn't priced that differently. You're exaggerating, or leaving out many choices, in order to forge a false point. A macbook is $999. Sure, you can spend more, but getting a mac laptop... $999 and you're there. And when you have spent your $999, you have several things that you don't have with your windows machine:
Also, you don't lose the ability to run windows: Parallels will put it in a window on the desktop, and bootcamp will turn the whole machine into a windows one.
It's not that simple. It is well established that when you lay out feature for feature, and compare OS efficiencies performance wise, actual system speeds (bus, IO, etc., not just CPU clock) there is a decent correspondence at similar price levels.
And there is a very important thing that Windows users love to deny, but I witness each and every day: The typical Windows machine is constantly in need of attention for malware, driver problems, and so forth. Macs... aren't. You can debate the reasons until the sun goes down, but it doesn't change the fact that a Mac requires a lot less maintainance from its owner.
Lastly, there's a small (in terms of variety, huge otherwise), but highly popular pool of nominally machine-agnostic hardware that brings the brand (Apple) first to mind when it comes to ease of use, high utility, and yeah, "coolness": The iPod and iPad products. They often introduce people to Apple, and again, at the end of the day when the dust settles, these are superb products and they naturally predispose people - students, anyone - to think positively of Apple.
I'm not surprised your student considered your advice bad. I would too. And I'm quite well versed in all three operating systems; I develop for all three and have all three on my desktop. When people ask me for a recommendation, I suggest Apple, usually with the note that they are much easier to maintain and use, as well as highly reliable, so consequently they save effort and frustration as time passes. If it costs more, the question is, are those benefits worth it? I think they are. But then again, I consider my time valuable and that strongly colors my choices.
um, No, they don't.
This is not impeachment; nor, in fact, neither do I consider it in any way an indication of criminality on the part of Clinton (or Lewinsky.) The second someone starts trying to coerce people to reveal adult, consensual sexual behavior, the person doing the asking is in the wrong.
If it is the legal system doing the asking, then the system is acting criminally in the sense that it is operating under laws created by legislators who have violated their oaths to uphold the constitution. And yes, that means I consider the government thoroughly criminal in some aspects of its actions. Clinton, however, is no more tarred as a criminal by this than you would be if I asked you if you had consensual sex with another adult and you lied. Some questions, no right can be found to ask. Doesn't matter who is doing the asking.
Even if you are clueless enough to buy the idea that the state has some imaginary right to knowledge of your personal, consensual choices -- this was a disciplinary action of a regulatory committee; not a criminal conviction of any kind. So he's still "all good", with the bonus of not having the stigma of being a lawyer for a while.
None of this, of course, addresses the question I asked the GP, which seems to assert that someone can only be considered a criminal if they've been through an official process. I'm still waiting for an explanation of that one.
No. He didn't "take a plea." There is neither a conviction or an "adjudication withheld" on his record. This all occurred outside the justice system. You my not like that, but it's a fact. You can, of course, call it anything you want. But it won't change it any. :)
Exactly; it's a shadow of the bill I would have liked to see pass, it fails miserably to curb the insurance companies and in its current form it lacks a public option, and so if people ask be if I'm satisfied with the bill, I say "no", unreservedly.
But that is NOT a declaration that I would see it repealed: It's a step in the right direction, in my opinion, which is healthcare for all, just as I see education for all and fire departments for all as deeply necessary social services best provided in a centralized manner.
It is my hope that once it begins to have a significant effect, that we can tweak it (now that we have something to tweak!) into a better form.
I totally applaud Obama (who I disagree with on many other issues) for helping to get this much passed.
So... your definition of "commit a crime" is, you have to be caught and tried? Not convicted (Clinton wasn't convicted, see below), but just put on trial?
So if some creep shows up at your house and sinks a knife into your wife, ending her life, then disappears into the night... never to be put on trial... he hasn't committed a crime?
I dunno, I've really got some problems with that. What is said knife-wielding miscreant's status, then, in your view? I would have said "wanted criminal" prior to your post, but am waiting for enlightenment. :)
Do you understand that presidential impeachment is a two-stage process? First, the house indicts the individual, then the senate convicts, or not.
In Clinton's case, the house indicted him; the senate did not convict him.
Thanks for your kind words, sir. :)
Facebook isn't really the area of new risk. The area that's going to see the most impact if his prediction of "Internet Passports" is that of whistle-blowers, the non-violent but anti-establishment types, and of course the "criminal class", the never-to-be-forgiven felons, sex offenders and so on who are already locked out (by policy) of Facebook; people who are criminal by law such as adult drug users or polygamists who are actually engaged in consensual, informed, adult activities (which, IMHO, makes the government the actual criminal entity.) And I've probably forgotten some important other classes of people who need anonymity in order to pursue even normal Internet activity -- certainly if they're going to speak their minds in a hostile environment, whatever the current public opinion of them is. For some people, simply being atheist is enough to earn them severe censure in their own communities. Who are we to say they *must* be outed?
I really don't think it's a good idea to support repressive ideas like Schmidt's. Anonymity is what enables many of the "squeaky wheels" in the system; lose it, and you force those people truly underground, making even the act of speaking anonymously on the Internet a crime, instead of just a choice.
This is really a highly repressive idea -- it's not going too far to call it evil, frankly. An "Internet Passport" would be a very bad thing for the tatters of liberty and freedom we have left in the USA. For countries that have even less freedom, the Internet is the single gateway to freedom of expression that depends upon anonymity. Anonymous voices from repressive countries bring the world's attention to the plight of various individuals and classes; they really do make a difference. Should those people need an "Internet passport", their ability to speak out will be outright amputated.
"Naiveness"? LOL... I guess it is cromulent, when you get right down to it. No need to embiggen the issue, though.
Well, anyway, look. If you have kids, you should probably fence your yard if you'd like to keep them out of hazards, like pools and dumpsters and manholes and so forth, presuming you've not yet trained them properly. This keeps your kids in an area you control and can "make safe." It is reasonably your responsibility to do this, because (wait for it) these are your kids, that you chose to have. Yours. Not anyone else's.
The other way around, that is, requiring everyone else to fence their yards in an attempt to sanitize the environment on your behalf, at direct expense to them, is economically unsound; assigns responsibility to entirely the wrong party; and is just generally stupid.
And yes, like a lot of laws are. I'm well aware that it represents the status quo; however, that is true for a lot of terminally stupid laws, like the drug laws; any law that forbids or limits an act of consensual, informed personal choice where physical and monetary effects are limited to those making said choice; blue laws; government support for superstition (in any form, including religion)... I could go on for quite a while.
Your approach seems to be "no one should object to the status quo." Mine is "when the status quo is harmful or could be bettered, one should speak up and put ideas on the table."
So between my, erm, "naiveness" (still LOL), and your head stuck quite far up your own ass, I'll keep doing it my way, thanks. Cheers.
You're welcome. WRT the view, yeah... but you have museums, fine dining, aquariums, water parks, theater, concerts, symphonies, conventions, a couple of centuries of fine architecture, the ocean, hills, caves, shopping, clubs and societies, modeling agencies, all manner of service industries and contractors, pizza delivery (and many different variations on pizza), grinder shops... I could go on for hours.
So while there are definitely a few benefits to living here, I think the envy is mostly on the other foot, as it were.
I drive to the coasts as often as I can so I may partake in all that goodness, but "often as I can" isn't really very often in the big picture... and I have business interests that both provide a reason to go, and usually manage to interfere with my fun once I get there. :)
Not close at all. At my latitude, this storm was a vague glow in the sky; I could see that it was there, and in this case, I could even see a little bit of the detail, but it's just at the edge of vision. The camera, however, can see far more than I can in terms of low light; I used a long exposure, and a wide, light-gathering aperture (like your eye's pupil open wide, only much wider), and turned up the sensitivity of the amplifier on camera's sensor to its maximum in order to capture what you see here.
To perceive it like this with the naked eye, either it would have to be much more intense (which does happen), or you would need to be further north and, as the lament above indicates, be enjoying a season during which the sun isn't hanging above you all night.
I've only seen auroral activity this intense with my naked eye twice in twenty years around here. But this solar cycle has been very active in terms of CMEs and general flashiness, and my hopes are high that it'll happen this time around. I wrote an application (PD, linux/OSX) that lets me see what the auroral and observing conditions are, and another one that texts me when conditions are right, so for the first time in my life, I'll not miss even one opportunity except by choice.
Sorry man, I take 'em when I can get 'em. :)
Here's another shot from last night, if it'll make you feel any better
Language is the brush we use to paint our thoughts on other people.
You can create finely detailed, compelling images; or you can can jerk out a stick figure like some addled child.
Which do you think will be better received?
Speaking as someone who owns a literary agency (a big one with lots of famous authors), I'm going to have to call you on that one.
It's not the authors. It's never been the authors. It's the publishers, and it has always been the publishers.
That's not an e-reader problem -- that's a social problem. e-readers would work fine on aircraft; aircraft are in no way inconvenienced by e-readers; there's no threat whatsoever. It's simply "terrorism theater" to keep the populace stirred up.
Just wait until someone packs something aboard an aircraft in/as a book; that'll be the end of your feeling of superiority.
Took this photo of the aurora last night in the short window of full darkness before the moon came up.
There will be another shooting opportunity tonight, if the geomagnetic storm continues.
If you actually read the thread, you may be able to inform yourself enough to make a comment worth responding to, you know. We're all holding our breath. Ok, not really. Once you've made an idiot post like that, we're not going to read your posts again. :o)
Ok, genius: Under exactly what acceptable parenting circumstances would your two year olds be trespassing on my property, unsupervised by you?
[crickets]
[birds chirping]
Yes, and all generalizations are false.
Idiot.
There's no sales tax in my state. So I've nothing to report. And as I don't live in your state, I really don't care what your state laws are.
Also, I forgot to mention, the correct way to read negative moderation on slashdot is "-1, Disagree, but incompetent to respond"
Moderation points are awarded randomly, and meta-moderation doesn't work. That's most of what you need to know to understand slashdot moderation.
Consequently, the primary use of negative moderation on slashdot is as censorship, but it only hides posts from those who don't set their comment threshold to -1, so it's kind of a wash.
Though I have to say, the opportunities to torment the clueless moderators are endlessly entertaining. :)
Look, another moron moderator! Hey, cluetard, explaining how a mismoderated post fits into the topic at hand is not offtopic. Just so you know. Oh, I'm sorry, first language not English? Moderator powers awarded randomly? Just clicking the pretty buttons? Aw, how cute. :o)