Treat children like subhumans and that's exactly what you'll get. I have no doubt that accepting this type of thing will just instill a belief in them that surveillance is okay.
I believe that's what it is intended to do. For just that reason they're keeping it fairly tame and benign.
Anyone who thinks it will stay that way is a fool. It would be like expecting a business not to look for new markets when it is in their nature to do so.
I think it's more likely they'll see that as being treated like a child the same way adults view curfews.
That sounds at first glance like a good point so I'll explain why it won't be that way.
Curfews can't so easily be excused by saying "well if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about from all this monitoring and tracking". Curfews can't so easily be used to track down and catch a murderer or rapist or other violent criminal, which really appeals to cowards who surrender their liberty and privacy for a promise of security.
Now, if they want to do this to an adult, or forced embed it in a human, that is a DIFFERENT issue.
If you had always been tagged from the time you were a small child, and had all your life to get used to the idea, would you still think so?
That's the danger.
It's early conditioning (indoctrination) for a future time when it will be easier to justify (excuse) doing this to adults. Right now lots of adults feel the way you do about tagging or chipping adults. That makes it politically difficult or impossible to do that right now. That's about the only thing stopping it because politics is full of authoritarian types who would love to do it.
What an original idea! You sir, have proven that you are not a sheep!
Very much against your original intent, you have provided a great illustration of a certain blindness principle.
When someone makes a good point that's true and valid, and you happen to find it painfully uncomfortable because it's a bit too true, why that's easy! Just get political! Take the point they made, put a little twist on it, and turn it around to try to falsely reflect it back on the person pointing it out. This has two effects. First, it takes a generally true statement and makes it into a personal ad-hominem statement. That's a sure distraction technique. Second, it discredits the truth of the statement without ever having to formulate a refutation. It's the lazy, stupid man's way of effecting a dismissal.
And all the while you get to remain in your comfortable little bubble where most people are not blind sheep who place far too much importance on things that can be centrally controlled like mass media. That's why you stoop to what amount to crude PR tactics against this poster: he was threatening to pop your bubble, making him the enemy, making any below-the-belt dismissal immediately appealing to you.
This capacity, this mentality is why people don't rise up en masse and reject the bullshit they're spoonfed on a daily basis. Because attacking the messenger like a spoiled child is so much easier, and so much more convenient than taking on severe systemic problems.
They aren't restricting comments, so your entire bandwagon argument is flummery.
I get what you're saying there. I mean, AARP is still a very powerful voting bloc so it's not like they are going to disregard entirely postal letters and faxes and such.
All the same, if you're a staffer who has to field and sum up many thousands or millions of replies, you have to perform some kind of triage. Do you focus first on individual paper letters? Sounds nice until you see the mass of them. Okay. So what's easier to aggregate? Yeah, electronic communication that already arrives in an easily indexed, searchable format. With the masses of users it commands, there is no way Facebook won't hold a porportionally heavy weight here.
Then there's the bandwagon deal whether you care for the notion or not. Facebook users all have something in common: they are willing to surrender privacy to have a substandard Web hosting presence. That means they can be aggregated, just as "the black vote" is aggretated, "the hispanic vote" is aggregated, "the women voters" are aggregated, and other general blocs are artificially produced. It's all about group identity with these (Congress) people. Identity politics has become a huge force even when it doesn't deserve to be.
I'm sorry but you are blind if you don't see the influence this has. This is just another group that can be treated as a group. If it were otherwise, it would be difficult for Facebook to monetize it. Real individuals are quite hard to market to. It's like trying to herd cats.
Yes, how sad that someone who refuses to use facebook for any reason won't get to participate in anything that happens on facebook.
In that condescending tone you are using I see what you are saying. But you're missing the point.
The point is, Congress did not have to restrict this only to Facebook account holders. That's the only reason why there is any question of missing anything due to not having such an account. This is the US federal government. It's not like they couldn't afford their own site.
There is only one reason why such a well-funded, well-connected, powerful organization would do it this way. They want to restrict commentary to Facebook account holders, which is another way to say they only want to hear from people who jump on bandwagons. If you use Facebook there is a slim but non-zero chance you might be an individual who did so by your own decision and not as a result of caving in to some kind of social pressure. But in this day and age if you do not choose to participate in Facebook it is definitely because you are an individual who can resist all of the people trying to get you to jump on the bandwagon.
Wow, you mean a top-down organization like Congress doesn't want to hear from individuals who can think for themselves and make their own decisions, even going against the way the wind blows? Color me surprised.
It's a filtering mechanism. That's the only reason to do it this way. You really can't see that? Or is this personal to you -- you do have a Facebook account and don't want to admit that certain inferences can be made about you from that? That's fine and good but it has nothing to do with the effect this has. Two plus two does equal four even if you're really offended about it.
Where "independent" and "objective" simply means "giving the bad as much airtime and consideration as the good."
Reminds me of the news when they parrot statements made by government officials.
Even when the statements are easily shown to be false, internally inconsistent, misleading, etc., they just quote the statement verbatim like a sales-oriented press release. There is no criticism of the statements made. They're simply quoted. Easily researched facts that contradict such official statements are not mentioned. I guess that would be too much like real objectivity for their tastes? I mean the way the media and government works is very simple: if you are a reporter and you ask powerful people hard questions, you stop getting invited to the next press events. You lose access as punishment. Only those with the preferred dispositions are invited. It works as long as everybody doesn't want to ask hard questions, that way those who do can be singled out.
Anyway, maybe they are treating this Beringer guy like a lawyer: the "best" (most effective) oens are like attack dogs. They sic whomever their master points at. Maybe they're hoping that having him on their side will be an asset provided they can keep this dog on a short leash.
Personally, I think by hiring people with reputations and affiliations like this, they just destroyed their own goodwill and credibility supposing they had any. That's not in the least because he was the MPAA "Technology Policy Officer" and he's a pretty shitty one if he doesn't tell them to adapt to the Information Age as they have clearly failed to do.
Sorry it took me a while to get back to you. I think this got lost in a lot of other messages.
Someone technically proficient would understand the sort of private information they will inevitably give up, but the rest is opinion. You're prescribing ideology to something that is ideology-agnostic.
Eh, unless I really strongly need the casual attention of strangers in order to feel accepted, liked, wanted, appreciated, etc. (i.e. an unhealthy state of looking to the outside world for what can be found within yourself), then Facebook has little or nothing to offer me in exchange for the privacy I am giving up. You can call that "just my opinion" in the sense that other people don't feel that way, but I can say that one of those is definitely superior. Opinions usually don't have "superior and inferior". They are generally all equal because they are all just taste and preference.
If I say that living within your means is more financially stable than spending money you don't have, is that just my opinion? I mean, there certainly are people who choose not to live within their means and plenty of them are not poor. Do they simply have a different preference? Or is one option really better?
Facebook seeks to satisfy an emptiness, a need for attention, that I do not have. I don't believe anyone should have that kind of need, though I observe that the majority does.
Apple designs their products for people in general, not for non-geeks specifically. Even if they did, geeks don't have to listen to Apple. There's nothing to say that geeks must have a different taste in consumer electronics to everyone else.
People in general are not geeks. That's where I was coming from earlier. Geeks would be a much, much smaller market. Designing devices just for geeks would alienate "people in general". It would not be a good business decision. It wouldn't have produced the results I personally observed -- people who are not technically inclined who bought Macs and suddenly stopped having frequent "computer problems".
I'm sorry if you took it personally. That certainly wasn't my intention. I wholeheartedly disagree with your opinion, but not so much that I found it offensive to any degree. I don't post very politely, but that's part of the thrill of discussion on slashdot: putting passion in your arguments. As I usually do, I had endeavoured to keep personal barbs out of my post (if I want them in there, oh boy, you will know!), but I know that my usual passion can be misconstrued from time to time.
It takes a respectable person to offer an apology when they could just continue to bicker. While I don't think an apology was necessary (I only wanted you to acknowledge that this need not be personal), you honor yourself by offering one.
I know what you mean about passion. That's why I try to be dispassionate, for passion is not the only force your words can have. But I understand what you're saying all the same. I can come across as cutting when I encounter the kind of stupidity that delights in its own resistence to reality, but it's not because I'm offended. It's because that really is an ugly thing to encounter and I am not going to sugar-coat just to be thought of as such a nice guy. That kind of "niceness" is a pathetic substitute for genuine kindness, which often takes the form of a "tough love" type of deal.
When you tell someone they apparently have a superiority complex, though, it's no longer about Apple and their target markets. It is now about you and that person. I just felt like we can do better than playing armchair psychologists to one another. I don't feel that way because of offense.
I will explain one thing though. I do not believe I am superhuman, especially talented, particularly great, or otherwise special. What I do believe is that if I can read and understand a manual, FAQ, etc. and apply its knowledge to have a great experience, so can any
Violent video games may cause aggressive behavior in a subset of individuals, likely already predisposed to said aggressive behavior.
As another poster pointed out, the APA statement about this was retracted. This bill is completely unsubstantiated.
There needs to be an easy way to strike down laws that are contradicted by facts. For example, both marijuana and LSD have medical uses, yet both are Schedule 1 (no medical use) drugs. The facts here are not in dispute. Don't we want laws to match reality?
Where are the visionary rich when it comes to biotech?
Hiring patent lawyers. At least if Monsanto is any indication.
See, the problem is that this bionic hand can't cross-pollinate with natural hands and produce new lawsuits. Fix that and there will be bionic hands for everyone who wants them.
What I'd like to see is some kind of very tough civics test as a requirement for voting.
You raise some good points but the above is not really relevant. One can be uninterested in civics/politics while at the same time holding very valid points about an issue. Case in point, should the 'ruling' of the internet be left to the politicians/lawyers or to engineers who built it. If you exclude the latter because they are not involved 'enough' in politics, you'll break the internet. This applies to almost everything.
The civics test can (should) be apolitical and only test your knowledge of the system, the rules and the process.
Well yeah, otherwise it would be something other than civics. Civics revolves around undisputed fact. Opinions have no place in a standardized test. Either we have a bicameral legislature or we don't.. etc.
I'm glad you understood what I meant. It seems few others did.
Other competitors cut each other's throats to get the cheapest computer, monitor, phone and tablet out into the marketplace. Apple does not. In essence they are not Apple's competitors but simply each other's competitors.
Actually, Jim Crow involved so-called "literacy tests". They were not civics tests, nor were they claimed to be.
The principle I believe you are failing to appreciate is the one about not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The problem with the Jim Crow era was caused by rampant, institutionalized racism. That doesn't mean that all tests are inherently bad. It means that tests designed to serve racists goals are... racist. Just because a guy gets attacked by someone wearing a red shirt doesn't mean that every person who wears a red shirt is EVIL.
Other competitors cut each other's throats to get the cheapest computer, monitor, phone and tablet out into the marketplace. Apple does not. In essence they are not Apple's competitors but simply each other's competitors.
I'm not like these soft, spoiled, limp-wristed types you seem more used to dealing with. If a reform makes this nation a better place in which to live, I can gladly make some sacrifices. If that means I lose my suffrage, it's a small price to pay compared to wondering what country I should relocate to when this one collapses under its own weight.
Social Security checks received for purposes of retirement are not entitlements because those people paid into the system. It is not welfare when they take something back out of the system into which they have paid, just like my bank is not performing an act of charity when I withdraw money I earlier deposited. The other items you mentioned are best dealt with by eliminating the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax. Then the government doesn't get to micromanage behavior via financial carrot-and-stick methods.
Actually in the case of Facebook, a "geek" is someone who is technically proficient enough to understand that the private information they will inevitably give up is not worth the benefit of what is basically free, substandard Web hosting.
In the case of Apple, a "geek" is what you don't have to be in order to use their products because their products are specifically made for ease of use. Apple didn't design their consumer products for geeks because that's a very small market. They designed them for a general audience because that's where the sales are.
I don't usually indulge such childishness like what you are showing when you take a discussion about Facebook and Apple and decide that you just have to make it about me personally. But what the hell. Since you seem to really want to make this personal...if recognizing reality is your definition of a "superiority complex" then you sound like a very insecure person.
What happened to the adults who could disagree with someone's opinion without making it a personal matter? I miss them, wherever they went.
So once again you reply to me with an adverse tone, without actually refuting a single statement I made?
Are you that sensitive about any mention of Apple? Does the color of my tie offend you or something?
Other competitors cut each other's throats to get the cheapest computer, monitor, phone and tablet out into the marketplace. Apple does not. In essence they are not Apple's competitors but simply each other's competitors.
Yes, Apple is somehow not a business and therefore it is wrong to regard them like any other business. There's Apple, and then there are businesses. Wait, what?! Say, that makes no sense whatsoever...
Honestly I don't care one way or the other -- nothing Apple does affects my life in any way. But really if you believe that Apple has no competition, could never have competition, and could never go back to the verge of bankruptcy (that they have known before), then OK. At this point I'll humor you like a child who just doesn't want to admit Santa Claus isn't real. No sense arguing with such a person. I just hope Apple doesn't share your arrogance if they want to remain successful.
And really, you fanboys need to stop being so damned hypersensitive. You remind me of how religious fanatics would respond to a cartoon (yeah, a fucking piece of paper with a particular set of colors on it) of a certain prophet. It's all emotional BS that you go back and try to rationalize because you think that will legitimize it and make it less obvious. It doesn't.
When I was a young computer geek - the very first month I used and understood the internet sooo many years ago, I knew this GREAT THING - this great concept - would be a threat to a lot of people and would never survive in it's current form. I'm just surprised it lasted this long.
See, you're actually using foresight combined with a working knowledge of modern politics.
Shut up, you! There's nothing to see here. Now look at this copyrighted video (TM)(R)(C) and pay your extortion fee I mean royalties like a good Citizen...
I see you making some statements of the obvious. The thing is, I didn't dispute any of them. I was talking about Apple's performance as a company when compared to competitors. You know, that thing I kept referring to? Yeah, that.
If there is something I said that you believe is in error, as in factually incorrect, let me know.
I really do wish people around here would understand what fuck 'marketshare' actually means. Apple could sell 20% more iPads this year than last and still fall in marketshare. Why? Because their marketshare was 100% until their competitors came along.
If you want to experess doom and gloom, go by how much their sales of dropped, not marketshare. Derr.
Seems to me you need both figures to get the whole picture.
Let's say your sales go up a little but your marketshare drops drastically. It means you're doing a little better and your competitors are doing much better. It indicates you are no longer so competitive.
Short-term, it's just like you say -- no big deal, it's a fairly new market, etc. Long-term, if that doesn't change, it will prove to be unsustainable. That's the part that remains to be seen. It's easy to have good sales and good marketshare when there are no other players in the market. I'm much more interested in what happens when that environment changes.
There's nothing that annoys me more in this world than women
The only ones that annoy me are the majority who are well into adulthood but never really grew up and matured emotionally. They like to complaine, whine, play childish mindgames, and they demand to be an object of worship, getting quite impatient if there is even a moment where they are not the center of attention. They also have a very hard time saying what they mean and meaning what they say. That show "Jersey Shore" provides some particularly obvious and egregiously childish examples. No interaction with women like that is ever going to be a good thing for you. You can be lonely and retain your dignity, but that will be the first (and not the last) thing you lose if you give these the time of day.
Of course, some fraction of them are true ladies. They long ago got over the fact that they have a vagina and they want to relate as equals in an honest way. Those are worth more than their weight in platinum because they are priceless. If you meet one like that, cherish her and be glad you met her, even if you have no intention of being with her. If you have yet to meet one, I assure you they do exist, they just aren't loud and flashy and in-your-face so you might not have noticed them. Of course, that assumes you have enough character and refinement yourself to notice and appreciate them.
...it's also an interesting service that many geeks would probably be quite interested in.
Sorry, if you use Apple you have to turn your geek card.
Agreed. That's the way I feel about Facebook too.
Especially for those who remember Apple prior to OS X, the major selling point of Apple and "computing for the rest of us" was that they made devices that didn't require a geek to use. And I admit that claim had some merit; completely non-technical people I know who bought a Mac some years back were delighted not to have all the problems with it that they had with Windows PCs.*
* Most of which involved malware, some involved the tendency Windows had to accumulate cruft and require periodic reinstalls, some came from flat-out refusing to read the fucking manual (the one written in 5th-grade English just like the newspaper), and others came from their inability to choose quality software and expressing surprise that the NoName Freeware with no reviews that they got from Tucows caused problems.
The last several times I sent something through UPS they verified the contents. They do this now because of all the people mailing packages of drugs.
Wouldn't they rather claim something similar to the telecoms' "common carrier" status? In other words, is there really zero chance that the one cleverly-concealed package of drugs that slips by wouldn't get them in trouble for drug trafficking?
You can put anything you want into terms and conditions. If it violates their service agreement with the CC processing service (which it is practically guaranteed to), it will be null and void. Credit card companies value your revenue stream more than they value the vendors.
I just wouldn't do business with these "fine people" in the first place.
Reading their ToS it occurred to me. Honest businessmen wake up every morning, in a cold sweat, trembling, saying "man, today's the day, I can feel it in my bones! A satisfied customer I haven't wronged in any way is going to seek justice against me, I just know it! They'll probably do it with a chargeback. How EVIL! Damn, I gotta protect myself!" Oh wait, no they don't. Honest businessmen don't do that at all, come to think of it...
There is no reason for a chargeback to ever be filed. If a credit is due, simply contact us and we will gladly issue it.
In other words... "trust us! we never make mistakes and we always act on good faith, that's why we demand that you surrender the usual means of recourse in the event that we grossly fail you..." Yeah, that's what honest people always require.
Unnecessary chargebacks are theft and can be prosecuted.
If chargebacks and the private arbitration that could result are theft, then a legal suit in a real court must be robbery! Yes, as everyone knows, honest businesses always threaten their customers up-front, without reason or provocation, while calling them potential thieves. Damn, where do I sign up?
So do the four major credit card companies have a contact address where we can advise them that one of their merchant account holders is potentially in violation of their agreement, maybe also ask if this is representative of their business practices in general? I mean, since they like a strict Terms of Service then what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Did they hire some RIAA lawyers to draw up this ToS? I would never do business with these people for any reason. They seem to expect that none of their customers will act on good faith. Why shouldn't I assume that such an expectation comes from people who, themselves, do not intend to act in good faith? I hope they fail and go bankrupt, only to be replaced by companies with similar business models who have some respect for their own customers.
If you find yourself tempted to say "umm", don't say anything at all. Make it a pause instead.
In my experience with family members, every pause opens me up to being interrupted before I can finish my sentence.
Eh that's called being enough of an adult to have patience and not be so damned impulsive. It's on the decline along with most other virtues not immediately tied to survival.
The way I deal with that is simple. If I have information or advice that I know for certain will spare someone a lot of time, misery, suffering, risk, etc... I will make an effort to tell them. If they won't listen or they keep cutting me off to talk about some frivolous irrelevant thing, OK, I respect their wishes. Since they are an adult person I respect that they knowingly assume the risk that they may have learned something extremely beneficial to them. The principle here is that I will not fight a person in order to help them -- that's madness. I will instead respect their wishes.
Later, after they suffer some completely avoidable fate that they would have avoided had they paused a moment to listen, I will not listen to their complaint. I will tell them they had an option and they made a choice.
It tends to make them think twice about being a member of the ADD crowd.
And I have no sympathy for that whatsoever. I don't harm them or tell them they should act differently because that's not my call to make. I just leave them to their own devices and wish them well. If that doesn't work out for them and they have second thoughts, then I explain that there were options they neglected to consider. That's how you deal with this bullshit. You give it enough rope to hang itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Treat children like subhumans and that's exactly what you'll get. I have no doubt that accepting this type of thing will just instill a belief in them that surveillance is okay.
I believe that's what it is intended to do. For just that reason they're keeping it fairly tame and benign.
Anyone who thinks it will stay that way is a fool. It would be like expecting a business not to look for new markets when it is in their nature to do so.
I think it's more likely they'll see that as being treated like a child the same way adults view curfews.
That sounds at first glance like a good point so I'll explain why it won't be that way.
Curfews can't so easily be excused by saying "well if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about from all this monitoring and tracking". Curfews can't so easily be used to track down and catch a murderer or rapist or other violent criminal, which really appeals to cowards who surrender their liberty and privacy for a promise of security.
Now, if they want to do this to an adult, or forced embed it in a human, that is a DIFFERENT issue.
If you had always been tagged from the time you were a small child, and had all your life to get used to the idea, would you still think so?
That's the danger.
It's early conditioning (indoctrination) for a future time when it will be easier to justify (excuse) doing this to adults. Right now lots of adults feel the way you do about tagging or chipping adults. That makes it politically difficult or impossible to do that right now. That's about the only thing stopping it because politics is full of authoritarian types who would love to do it.
That's because most people are sheep.
What an original idea! You sir, have proven that you are not a sheep!
Very much against your original intent, you have provided a great illustration of a certain blindness principle.
When someone makes a good point that's true and valid, and you happen to find it painfully uncomfortable because it's a bit too true, why that's easy! Just get political! Take the point they made, put a little twist on it, and turn it around to try to falsely reflect it back on the person pointing it out. This has two effects. First, it takes a generally true statement and makes it into a personal ad-hominem statement. That's a sure distraction technique. Second, it discredits the truth of the statement without ever having to formulate a refutation. It's the lazy, stupid man's way of effecting a dismissal.
And all the while you get to remain in your comfortable little bubble where most people are not blind sheep who place far too much importance on things that can be centrally controlled like mass media. That's why you stoop to what amount to crude PR tactics against this poster: he was threatening to pop your bubble, making him the enemy, making any below-the-belt dismissal immediately appealing to you.
This capacity, this mentality is why people don't rise up en masse and reject the bullshit they're spoonfed on a daily basis. Because attacking the messenger like a spoiled child is so much easier, and so much more convenient than taking on severe systemic problems.
They aren't restricting comments, so your entire bandwagon argument is flummery.
I get what you're saying there. I mean, AARP is still a very powerful voting bloc so it's not like they are going to disregard entirely postal letters and faxes and such.
All the same, if you're a staffer who has to field and sum up many thousands or millions of replies, you have to perform some kind of triage. Do you focus first on individual paper letters? Sounds nice until you see the mass of them. Okay. So what's easier to aggregate? Yeah, electronic communication that already arrives in an easily indexed, searchable format. With the masses of users it commands, there is no way Facebook won't hold a porportionally heavy weight here.
Then there's the bandwagon deal whether you care for the notion or not. Facebook users all have something in common: they are willing to surrender privacy to have a substandard Web hosting presence. That means they can be aggregated, just as "the black vote" is aggretated, "the hispanic vote" is aggregated, "the women voters" are aggregated, and other general blocs are artificially produced. It's all about group identity with these (Congress) people. Identity politics has become a huge force even when it doesn't deserve to be.
I'm sorry but you are blind if you don't see the influence this has. This is just another group that can be treated as a group. If it were otherwise, it would be difficult for Facebook to monetize it. Real individuals are quite hard to market to. It's like trying to herd cats.
Yes, how sad that someone who refuses to use facebook for any reason won't get to participate in anything that happens on facebook.
In that condescending tone you are using I see what you are saying. But you're missing the point.
The point is, Congress did not have to restrict this only to Facebook account holders. That's the only reason why there is any question of missing anything due to not having such an account. This is the US federal government. It's not like they couldn't afford their own site.
There is only one reason why such a well-funded, well-connected, powerful organization would do it this way. They want to restrict commentary to Facebook account holders, which is another way to say they only want to hear from people who jump on bandwagons. If you use Facebook there is a slim but non-zero chance you might be an individual who did so by your own decision and not as a result of caving in to some kind of social pressure. But in this day and age if you do not choose to participate in Facebook it is definitely because you are an individual who can resist all of the people trying to get you to jump on the bandwagon.
Wow, you mean a top-down organization like Congress doesn't want to hear from individuals who can think for themselves and make their own decisions, even going against the way the wind blows? Color me surprised.
It's a filtering mechanism. That's the only reason to do it this way. You really can't see that? Or is this personal to you -- you do have a Facebook account and don't want to admit that certain inferences can be made about you from that? That's fine and good but it has nothing to do with the effect this has. Two plus two does equal four even if you're really offended about it.
Where "independent" and "objective" simply means "giving the bad as much airtime and consideration as the good."
Reminds me of the news when they parrot statements made by government officials.
Even when the statements are easily shown to be false, internally inconsistent, misleading, etc., they just quote the statement verbatim like a sales-oriented press release. There is no criticism of the statements made. They're simply quoted. Easily researched facts that contradict such official statements are not mentioned. I guess that would be too much like real objectivity for their tastes? I mean the way the media and government works is very simple: if you are a reporter and you ask powerful people hard questions, you stop getting invited to the next press events. You lose access as punishment. Only those with the preferred dispositions are invited. It works as long as everybody doesn't want to ask hard questions, that way those who do can be singled out.
Anyway, maybe they are treating this Beringer guy like a lawyer: the "best" (most effective) oens are like attack dogs. They sic whomever their master points at. Maybe they're hoping that having him on their side will be an asset provided they can keep this dog on a short leash.
Personally, I think by hiring people with reputations and affiliations like this, they just destroyed their own goodwill and credibility supposing they had any. That's not in the least because he was the MPAA "Technology Policy Officer" and he's a pretty shitty one if he doesn't tell them to adapt to the Information Age as they have clearly failed to do.
Someone technically proficient would understand the sort of private information they will inevitably give up, but the rest is opinion. You're prescribing ideology to something that is ideology-agnostic.
Eh, unless I really strongly need the casual attention of strangers in order to feel accepted, liked, wanted, appreciated, etc. (i.e. an unhealthy state of looking to the outside world for what can be found within yourself), then Facebook has little or nothing to offer me in exchange for the privacy I am giving up. You can call that "just my opinion" in the sense that other people don't feel that way, but I can say that one of those is definitely superior. Opinions usually don't have "superior and inferior". They are generally all equal because they are all just taste and preference.
If I say that living within your means is more financially stable than spending money you don't have, is that just my opinion? I mean, there certainly are people who choose not to live within their means and plenty of them are not poor. Do they simply have a different preference? Or is one option really better?
Facebook seeks to satisfy an emptiness, a need for attention, that I do not have. I don't believe anyone should have that kind of need, though I observe that the majority does.
Apple designs their products for people in general, not for non-geeks specifically. Even if they did, geeks don't have to listen to Apple. There's nothing to say that geeks must have a different taste in consumer electronics to everyone else.
People in general are not geeks. That's where I was coming from earlier. Geeks would be a much, much smaller market. Designing devices just for geeks would alienate "people in general". It would not be a good business decision. It wouldn't have produced the results I personally observed -- people who are not technically inclined who bought Macs and suddenly stopped having frequent "computer problems".
I'm sorry if you took it personally. That certainly wasn't my intention. I wholeheartedly disagree with your opinion, but not so much that I found it offensive to any degree. I don't post very politely, but that's part of the thrill of discussion on slashdot: putting passion in your arguments. As I usually do, I had endeavoured to keep personal barbs out of my post (if I want them in there, oh boy, you will know!), but I know that my usual passion can be misconstrued from time to time.
It takes a respectable person to offer an apology when they could just continue to bicker. While I don't think an apology was necessary (I only wanted you to acknowledge that this need not be personal), you honor yourself by offering one.
I know what you mean about passion. That's why I try to be dispassionate, for passion is not the only force your words can have. But I understand what you're saying all the same. I can come across as cutting when I encounter the kind of stupidity that delights in its own resistence to reality, but it's not because I'm offended. It's because that really is an ugly thing to encounter and I am not going to sugar-coat just to be thought of as such a nice guy. That kind of "niceness" is a pathetic substitute for genuine kindness, which often takes the form of a "tough love" type of deal.
When you tell someone they apparently have a superiority complex, though, it's no longer about Apple and their target markets. It is now about you and that person. I just felt like we can do better than playing armchair psychologists to one another. I don't feel that way because of offense.
I will explain one thing though. I do not believe I am superhuman, especially talented, particularly great, or otherwise special. What I do believe is that if I can read and understand a manual, FAQ, etc. and apply its knowledge to have a great experience, so can any
There are three arguments:
1. They're right, and labels should be added. 2. They're wrong, and labels shouldn't be added. 3. It's not their jurisdiction.
The most distressing part of news items like this is that the third argument is so frequently overlooked.
Even if they're absolutely, 100% right beyond all possible dispute, labels still shouldn't be added.
If you need laws like this to decide how to raise your children, you should not be a parent -- please give them up for adoption, for their own good.
Violent video games may cause aggressive behavior in a subset of individuals, likely already predisposed to said aggressive behavior.
As another poster pointed out, the APA statement about this was retracted. This bill is completely unsubstantiated.
There needs to be an easy way to strike down laws that are contradicted by facts. For example, both marijuana and LSD have medical uses, yet both are Schedule 1 (no medical use) drugs. The facts here are not in dispute. Don't we want laws to match reality?
Where are the visionary rich when it comes to biotech?
Hiring patent lawyers. At least if Monsanto is any indication.
See, the problem is that this bionic hand can't cross-pollinate with natural hands and produce new lawsuits. Fix that and there will be bionic hands for everyone who wants them.
What I'd like to see is some kind of very tough civics test as a requirement for voting.
You raise some good points but the above is not really relevant. One can be uninterested in civics/politics while at the same time holding very valid points about an issue. Case in point, should the 'ruling' of the internet be left to the politicians/lawyers or to engineers who built it. If you exclude the latter because they are not involved 'enough' in politics, you'll break the internet. This applies to almost everything.
The civics test can (should) be apolitical and only test your knowledge of the system, the rules and the process.
Well yeah, otherwise it would be something other than civics. Civics revolves around undisputed fact. Opinions have no place in a standardized test. Either we have a bicameral legislature or we don't .. etc.
I'm glad you understood what I meant. It seems few others did.
Other competitors cut each other's throats to get the cheapest computer, monitor, phone and tablet out into the marketplace. Apple does not. In essence they are not Apple's competitors but simply each other's competitors.
Actually, Jim Crow involved so-called "literacy tests". They were not civics tests, nor were they claimed to be.
... racist. Just because a guy gets attacked by someone wearing a red shirt doesn't mean that every person who wears a red shirt is EVIL.
The principle I believe you are failing to appreciate is the one about not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The problem with the Jim Crow era was caused by rampant, institutionalized racism. That doesn't mean that all tests are inherently bad. It means that tests designed to serve racists goals are
Other competitors cut each other's throats to get the cheapest computer, monitor, phone and tablet out into the marketplace. Apple does not. In essence they are not Apple's competitors but simply each other's competitors.
I'm not like these soft, spoiled, limp-wristed types you seem more used to dealing with. If a reform makes this nation a better place in which to live, I can gladly make some sacrifices. If that means I lose my suffrage, it's a small price to pay compared to wondering what country I should relocate to when this one collapses under its own weight.
Social Security checks received for purposes of retirement are not entitlements because those people paid into the system. It is not welfare when they take something back out of the system into which they have paid, just like my bank is not performing an act of charity when I withdraw money I earlier deposited. The other items you mentioned are best dealt with by eliminating the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax. Then the government doesn't get to micromanage behavior via financial carrot-and-stick methods.
Actually in the case of Facebook, a "geek" is someone who is technically proficient enough to understand that the private information they will inevitably give up is not worth the benefit of what is basically free, substandard Web hosting.
In the case of Apple, a "geek" is what you don't have to be in order to use their products because their products are specifically made for ease of use. Apple didn't design their consumer products for geeks because that's a very small market. They designed them for a general audience because that's where the sales are.
I don't usually indulge such childishness like what you are showing when you take a discussion about Facebook and Apple and decide that you just have to make it about me personally. But what the hell. Since you seem to really want to make this personal...if recognizing reality is your definition of a "superiority complex" then you sound like a very insecure person.
What happened to the adults who could disagree with someone's opinion without making it a personal matter? I miss them, wherever they went.
Are you that sensitive about any mention of Apple? Does the color of my tie offend you or something?
Other competitors cut each other's throats to get the cheapest computer, monitor, phone and tablet out into the marketplace. Apple does not. In essence they are not Apple's competitors but simply each other's competitors.
Yes, Apple is somehow not a business and therefore it is wrong to regard them like any other business. There's Apple, and then there are businesses. Wait, what?! Say, that makes no sense whatsoever...
Honestly I don't care one way or the other -- nothing Apple does affects my life in any way. But really if you believe that Apple has no competition, could never have competition, and could never go back to the verge of bankruptcy (that they have known before), then OK. At this point I'll humor you like a child who just doesn't want to admit Santa Claus isn't real. No sense arguing with such a person. I just hope Apple doesn't share your arrogance if they want to remain successful.
And really, you fanboys need to stop being so damned hypersensitive. You remind me of how religious fanatics would respond to a cartoon (yeah, a fucking piece of paper with a particular set of colors on it) of a certain prophet. It's all emotional BS that you go back and try to rationalize because you think that will legitimize it and make it less obvious. It doesn't.
When I was a young computer geek - the very first month I used and understood the internet sooo many years ago, I knew this GREAT THING - this great concept - would be a threat to a lot of people and would never survive in it's current form. I'm just surprised it lasted this long.
See, you're actually using foresight combined with a working knowledge of modern politics.
Shut up, you! There's nothing to see here. Now look at this copyrighted video (TM)(R)(C) and pay your extortion fee I mean royalties like a good Citizen...
I see you making some statements of the obvious. The thing is, I didn't dispute any of them. I was talking about Apple's performance as a company when compared to competitors. You know, that thing I kept referring to? Yeah, that.
If there is something I said that you believe is in error, as in factually incorrect, let me know.
I really do wish people around here would understand what fuck 'marketshare' actually means. Apple could sell 20% more iPads this year than last and still fall in marketshare. Why? Because their marketshare was 100% until their competitors came along.
If you want to experess doom and gloom, go by how much their sales of dropped, not marketshare. Derr.
Seems to me you need both figures to get the whole picture.
Let's say your sales go up a little but your marketshare drops drastically. It means you're doing a little better and your competitors are doing much better. It indicates you are no longer so competitive.
Short-term, it's just like you say -- no big deal, it's a fairly new market, etc. Long-term, if that doesn't change, it will prove to be unsustainable. That's the part that remains to be seen. It's easy to have good sales and good marketshare when there are no other players in the market. I'm much more interested in what happens when that environment changes.
There's nothing that annoys me more in this world than women
The only ones that annoy me are the majority who are well into adulthood but never really grew up and matured emotionally. They like to complaine, whine, play childish mindgames, and they demand to be an object of worship, getting quite impatient if there is even a moment where they are not the center of attention. They also have a very hard time saying what they mean and meaning what they say. That show "Jersey Shore" provides some particularly obvious and egregiously childish examples. No interaction with women like that is ever going to be a good thing for you. You can be lonely and retain your dignity, but that will be the first (and not the last) thing you lose if you give these the time of day.
Of course, some fraction of them are true ladies. They long ago got over the fact that they have a vagina and they want to relate as equals in an honest way. Those are worth more than their weight in platinum because they are priceless. If you meet one like that, cherish her and be glad you met her, even if you have no intention of being with her. If you have yet to meet one, I assure you they do exist, they just aren't loud and flashy and in-your-face so you might not have noticed them. Of course, that assumes you have enough character and refinement yourself to notice and appreciate them.
...it's also an interesting service that many geeks would probably be quite interested in.
Sorry, if you use Apple you have to turn your geek card.
Agreed. That's the way I feel about Facebook too.
Especially for those who remember Apple prior to OS X, the major selling point of Apple and "computing for the rest of us" was that they made devices that didn't require a geek to use. And I admit that claim had some merit; completely non-technical people I know who bought a Mac some years back were delighted not to have all the problems with it that they had with Windows PCs.*
* Most of which involved malware, some involved the tendency Windows had to accumulate cruft and require periodic reinstalls, some came from flat-out refusing to read the fucking manual (the one written in 5th-grade English just like the newspaper), and others came from their inability to choose quality software and expressing surprise that the NoName Freeware with no reviews that they got from Tucows caused problems.
The last several times I sent something through UPS they verified the contents. They do this now because of all the people mailing packages of drugs.
Wouldn't they rather claim something similar to the telecoms' "common carrier" status? In other words, is there really zero chance that the one cleverly-concealed package of drugs that slips by wouldn't get them in trouble for drug trafficking?
You can put anything you want into terms and conditions. If it violates their service agreement with the CC processing service (which it is practically guaranteed to), it will be null and void. Credit card companies value your revenue stream more than they value the vendors.
I just wouldn't do business with these "fine people" in the first place.
Reading their ToS it occurred to me. Honest businessmen wake up every morning, in a cold sweat, trembling, saying "man, today's the day, I can feel it in my bones! A satisfied customer I haven't wronged in any way is going to seek justice against me, I just know it! They'll probably do it with a chargeback. How EVIL! Damn, I gotta protect myself!" Oh wait, no they don't. Honest businessmen don't do that at all, come to think of it...
There is no reason for a chargeback to ever be filed. If a credit is due, simply contact us and we will gladly issue it.
In other words ... "trust us! we never make mistakes and we always act on good faith, that's why we demand that you surrender the usual means of recourse in the event that we grossly fail you..." Yeah, that's what honest people always require.
Unnecessary chargebacks are theft and can be prosecuted.
If chargebacks and the private arbitration that could result are theft, then a legal suit in a real court must be robbery! Yes, as everyone knows, honest businesses always threaten their customers up-front, without reason or provocation, while calling them potential thieves. Damn, where do I sign up?
So do the four major credit card companies have a contact address where we can advise them that one of their merchant account holders is potentially in violation of their agreement, maybe also ask if this is representative of their business practices in general? I mean, since they like a strict Terms of Service then what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Did they hire some RIAA lawyers to draw up this ToS? I would never do business with these people for any reason. They seem to expect that none of their customers will act on good faith. Why shouldn't I assume that such an expectation comes from people who, themselves, do not intend to act in good faith? I hope they fail and go bankrupt, only to be replaced by companies with similar business models who have some respect for their own customers.
If you find yourself tempted to say "umm", don't say anything at all. Make it a pause instead.
In my experience with family members, every pause opens me up to being interrupted before I can finish my sentence.
Eh that's called being enough of an adult to have patience and not be so damned impulsive. It's on the decline along with most other virtues not immediately tied to survival.
... I will make an effort to tell them. If they won't listen or they keep cutting me off to talk about some frivolous irrelevant thing, OK, I respect their wishes. Since they are an adult person I respect that they knowingly assume the risk that they may have learned something extremely beneficial to them. The principle here is that I will not fight a person in order to help them -- that's madness. I will instead respect their wishes.
The way I deal with that is simple. If I have information or advice that I know for certain will spare someone a lot of time, misery, suffering, risk, etc
Later, after they suffer some completely avoidable fate that they would have avoided had they paused a moment to listen, I will not listen to their complaint. I will tell them they had an option and they made a choice.
It tends to make them think twice about being a member of the ADD crowd.
And I have no sympathy for that whatsoever. I don't harm them or tell them they should act differently because that's not my call to make. I just leave them to their own devices and wish them well. If that doesn't work out for them and they have second thoughts, then I explain that there were options they neglected to consider. That's how you deal with this bullshit. You give it enough rope to hang itself.
the really interesting moments when you realize you were wrong, and you were wrong for wrong reasons.
If you eventually gain the perspective it takes to realize something like that, was it truly a wrong reason?