I suspect that a large part of the difference is that the search function of the cellulose based information content is so awkward that the user chooses to retain a synaptically based index of the information. With an eBook, the book is presumed to be available in the future and finding information is easy, why remember what you can lookup?
How is my seventh grade shop teacher going to do a five or even four finger gesture?
Seriously,substituting arcane non-intutive gestures for a button is not an improvement when it makes the device impossible or more difficult to use for some portion of the population. The most compelling news stories of the iPad's use were in enabling handicapped greater independence, will that be going away? With baby boomers hitting retirement limited hand mobility will become an increasing issue. I hope that Apple will remember that having one button on the mouse meant only needing to use one finger.
Those same sweatshops make almost every electronic device you use. They make your garbage disposal, your TV, the gizmos in you car, your clothes, light bulbs, etc, etc. Singling out Apple for being a public company that uses "sweatshops" is a non starter as an argument.
If we add "suicide inducing" can we get away with singling out Apple?;)
The Wikipedia article takes the statistics and presents them quite inaccurately. The source is cited, and the study used data from 15 states allowing serial crminals to move out ot the study's scope, so rates are underreported. Even so, Table 6 of the study http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf shows that 7.3% of child molesters released in 1994 had prior convictions and 18.3% had prior arrests.for "Sex offenses against a child". The recidivism rate is much higher by any reasonable measure than 5%.
From those statistics:
"An estimated 24% of those serving time for rape and 19% of those serving time for sexual assault had been on probation or parole at the time of the offense for which they were in State prison in 1991."
This would indicate that an effective parole/probation system could result in a significant reduction in rape and sexual assault.
The figures are for convictions three years after release, ( pg 2 http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf) most would be on parole for most of that time. Trials tend to drag out out so three years is much too short of a time span to base any judgement on. Also the figures do not consider the number of charges against the criminal (pg 5). I would be more interested on the data at ten or fifteen years. Table 6 shows that 7.3% of child molesters had prior convictions for sex offense against children - that is better indication of the rate.
Also, you should recognize that the recidivism rate is higher than the reconviction rate. The study included fifteen states, so repeat offenders who committed their crimes out of those states were not reported. Those who prey on children get better at avoiding detection with practice. The bank robber may get arrested the first three times he commits his crimes, the child molester probably won't have his crimes reported in that number. Bank robbery is not an underreported crime, child molestation and rape are.
Do we demand low cost, or do we merely (and almost invariably) choose it when it is available? I think we got to our current situation incrementally and that it was driven on the supplier side of the equation.
All those chemicals aren't bad, consider the savings on embalming when you die.
...the current relationship between humans and dolphins is, in effect, equivalent to the relationship between whites and black slaves two centuries ago.
Right, because everybody knows that humans and dolphins can interbreed.
On that basis we could count them as 3/5 of a human for representative porpoises.;)
Your side mirrors are not adjusted properly. You should not be able to see the sides of your car in them. A vehicle close behind you will not be visible in them, and dimming would not provide a benefit.
The most important character in the discussion has been conveniently omitted: the downloader, who has enough money to buy a computer and pay for Internet access,
Or maybe his parents or relatives bought it for him, or the person is a teen living at home using a family computer and parentally paid-for internet? Your dichotomy is too simplistic.
There is no false dichotomy since neither I nor the poster to whom I responded suggested that the acts involved represented an exhaustive listing. The discussion is correctly focused on acts, not individuals.
Who's more immoral, the guy who uses government power to get himself paid in perpetuity for a days work, or the guy who helps others get around that?
I don't know, which one rapes babies? The question is not about who, but about which act is less moral. The most important character in the discussion has been conveniently omitted: the downloader, who has enough money to buy a computer and pay for Internet access, but greedily takes the products of other's labor without paying - that would be the more immoral act. Neither of the other characters has necessarily done anything immoral.
So you would not have a problem with a newspaper publishing your name, home and work address, the key codes to your house and car, a list of valuable and easily transported items in your household, your social security number, all your account numbers and your working hours? They wouldn't really be responsible if some of your possessions ended up missing, would they?
Linking is not publishing. On that we agree, but...
Your claim is reminiscent of Germans' after WWII claiming that they did not know about the holocaust - after all, those gold teeth could have come from anywhere. Being complicit is not the same as doing, but it is not being innocent either. When Google publishes those links, presumably they do not know the context of the links, and they have acted innocently (or at least without malice), but your example is like the shop keeper who pointed out his Jewish competitor to the Gestapo, and said that he didn't know that they would kill the man and his family. He didn't "know" it, but he relied on it.
Apple, not I, removed the clones from the value equation. In March 1982, Apple started legal action against the clone makers, by August 1983 they had succeeded in killing the clones (Apple v. Franklin).
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect that a large part of the difference is that the search function of the cellulose based information content is so awkward that the user chooses to retain a synaptically based index of the information. With an eBook, the book is presumed to be available in the future and finding information is easy, why remember what you can lookup?
How is my seventh grade shop teacher going to do a five or even four finger gesture?
Seriously,substituting arcane non-intutive gestures for a button is not an improvement when it makes the device impossible or more difficult to use for some portion of the population. The most compelling news stories of the iPad's use were in enabling handicapped greater independence, will that be going away? With baby boomers hitting retirement limited hand mobility will become an increasing issue. I hope that Apple will remember that having one button on the mouse meant only needing to use one finger.
I guess that would explain those mock turtlenecks he always wears.
Those same sweatshops make almost every electronic device you use. They make your garbage disposal, your TV, the gizmos in you car, your clothes, light bulbs, etc, etc. Singling out Apple for being a public company that uses "sweatshops" is a non starter as an argument.
If we add "suicide inducing" can we get away with singling out Apple? ;)
The Wikipedia article takes the statistics and presents them quite inaccurately. The source is cited, and the study used data from 15 states allowing serial crminals to move out ot the study's scope, so rates are underreported. Even so, Table 6 of the study http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf shows that 7.3% of child molesters released in 1994 had prior convictions and 18.3% had prior arrests.for "Sex offenses against a child". The recidivism rate is much higher by any reasonable measure than 5%.
From those statistics: "An estimated 24% of those serving time for rape and 19% of those serving time for sexual assault had been on probation or parole at the time of the offense for which they were in State prison in 1991."
This would indicate that an effective parole/probation system could result in a significant reduction in rape and sexual assault.
The figures are for convictions three years after release, ( pg 2 http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf) most would be on parole for most of that time. Trials tend to drag out out so three years is much too short of a time span to base any judgement on. Also the figures do not consider the number of charges against the criminal (pg 5). I would be more interested on the data at ten or fifteen years. Table 6 shows that 7.3% of child molesters had prior convictions for sex offense against children - that is better indication of the rate.
Also, you should recognize that the recidivism rate is higher than the reconviction rate. The study included fifteen states, so repeat offenders who committed their crimes out of those states were not reported. Those who prey on children get better at avoiding detection with practice. The bank robber may get arrested the first three times he commits his crimes, the child molester probably won't have his crimes reported in that number. Bank robbery is not an underreported crime, child molestation and rape are.
Do Americans then taste of french fries and McDonald's?
If they did cannibalism would be more prevalent.
Do we demand low cost, or do we merely (and almost invariably) choose it when it is available? I think we got to our current situation incrementally and that it was driven on the supplier side of the equation.
All those chemicals aren't bad, consider the savings on embalming when you die.
Then buy a brand new one.
Maybe if our ancestors had fed on flocks of fast moving chameleons we would be better at this.
You answered this completely when you used the word rationalize. One does not rationalize moral acts.
On that basis we could count them as 3/5 of a human for representative porpoises. ;)
Your side mirrors are not adjusted properly. You should not be able to see the sides of your car in them. A vehicle close behind you will not be visible in them, and dimming would not provide a benefit.
The most important character in the discussion has been conveniently omitted: the downloader, who has enough money to buy a computer and pay for Internet access,
Or maybe his parents or relatives bought it for him, or the person is a teen living at home using a family computer and parentally paid-for internet? Your dichotomy is too simplistic.
There is no false dichotomy since neither I nor the poster to whom I responded suggested that the acts involved represented an exhaustive listing. The discussion is correctly focused on acts, not individuals.
has introduced a bill the have the name of the state changed from Florida to Oceania.
The name of the State has always been Oceania.
See what I did there, 2 CSI memes in one post, I rock.
The surprise is that you didn't get modded "troll" for that.
Who's more immoral, the guy who uses government power to get himself paid in perpetuity for a days work, or the guy who helps others get around that?
I don't know, which one rapes babies? The question is not about who, but about which act is less moral. The most important character in the discussion has been conveniently omitted: the downloader, who has enough money to buy a computer and pay for Internet access, but greedily takes the products of other's labor without paying - that would be the more immoral act. Neither of the other characters has necessarily done anything immoral.
Thierry Legault knows this. The writer of the summary seems to be more interested in a sensationalist headline line than in accuracy.
You don't belong here if you RTFA!
Not an observation; a target. It has held true because every foundry knew that they would meet the target or be at a competitive disadvantage.
Maybe if you used Windows, it would max out less on Flash and more on other tasks.
So you would not have a problem with a newspaper publishing your name, home and work address, the key codes to your house and car, a list of valuable and easily transported items in your household, your social security number, all your account numbers and your working hours? They wouldn't really be responsible if some of your possessions ended up missing, would they?
Linking is not publishing. On that we agree, but ...
Your claim is reminiscent of Germans' after WWII claiming that they did not know about the holocaust - after all, those gold teeth could have come from anywhere. Being complicit is not the same as doing, but it is not being innocent either. When Google publishes those links, presumably they do not know the context of the links, and they have acted innocently (or at least without malice), but your example is like the shop keeper who pointed out his Jewish competitor to the Gestapo, and said that he didn't know that they would kill the man and his family. He didn't "know" it, but he relied on it.
I would prefer the sound of one hand clapping. Failing that, the sound of the Jetson's "car".
Apple, not I, removed the clones from the value equation. In March 1982, Apple started legal action against the clone makers, by August 1983 they had succeeded in killing the clones (Apple v. Franklin).