I'm sorta cribbing from his summary, but I did RTFA...
Pro:
Code in Java
No App Store
Got licensing DRM to work...
Web/press reviews were important to success
App World is Good Thing
Con
Different platforms/versions
Very limited UI toolkit
Networking, particularly testing network reachability, seems overly complicated based on his description
Many BB devices are very resource constrained, and this a problem for many obvious and obscure reasons
Got licensing DRM to work, but is a hack and doesn't allow all the options author wanted
Not all retailers as good as App World
Most important lesson IMHO: "Everything is marketing."
His issues with the platform and the resources available on a BB really bring the differences with iPhone OSX and BB into relief. An iPhone is guaranteed to have a particular hardware config, and be very capacious in RAM and drive space, and has very teh shiny widgets and will always have the latest APIs; it also provides a brainless e-commerce platform to sell and install your app, to the point where buying a mobile app could be considered impulsive. You pay for all this with the fact that the Apple overmind decides if you can sell your app or not and takes its cut.
Also, culture does not last. Look at fall of the great civilizations in history - the Babolonians, the Persians, the Romans, etc.
Wealth is even more transient. Do Crassus's children "buy power" in our modern world with the money their ancestor made? Wealth dissipates.
I think when you misunderstand the word "culture" to mean "a civilization" or "an empire" or "a continuous polity." The Romans are gone, but you are reading this post in their alphabet, and I know who Crassus was. The cultural artifacts of Rome and Persia are with us just as much as they were when they were created. The only thing that's changed is the particular identities of the rich people who patronize them. Culture, to an extent, stands apart from politics and economy.
In the modern world, Money buys Power. More Money = more Power, more Power = more Control.
There are a few very, very wealthy Burmese and Iranian people that would disagree. The belief that material wealth confers political power or legitimacy is a particularly American notion. Religion, and cultural institutions like monarchies carry just as much sway.
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, but your account of "modern historians" seems to come out of thin air; no historian within the realm of citation has ever claimed Lincoln was a Democrat, or that the labels got "swapped" somehow. The Republican party isn't essentially racist; US political parties don't essentially stand for anything. The racist block of poor southern whites simply just stopped voting Dem and stated voting Republican after the LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act. Southerners had been wary of the Democratic coalition ever since FDR, but he was able to keep them in the tent by buying them off with federal allocations on projects like the TVA and rural electrificatio. The dead hand of this is still with us: the federal government still over-allocates to states that were critical to the dixiecrat electoral block.
The assertion that the southern strategy was a myth is prima facie ridiculous-- there's decades of documentation and scholarship, and most of the originators, including Phillips, Moynihan and Buchanan acknowledge that it exists and played a critical role in forming the post-Voting Rights Act Republican coalition. They stripped the Democratic party of dixiecrats by becoming a party of states' rights, opposing federal writ when it came to affirmative action and busing.
Goldberg's thesis is ahistorical. He tries to draw progressivism and liberalism together with socialism and fascism, but he reduces partisan alignment to philosophy. People vote for socialists without believing in socialism, because the fact is that most parties who declare themselves socialist, or fascist, or liberal simply aren't. Socialists, which were called "Social Democrats" in Germany were hell-bent against National-Socialists in Germany; and both detested the Communists. Progressives in the US had a strong historical relationship to the church, and while areligious progressives in the 30s favored eugenics policies religious ones absolutely did not. And all of this is separate from Sanger, unless you consider birth control tantamount to eugenics, which a lot of people honestly disagree with. The "liberal fascism" argument is born out of the belief that people identify with political parties because they share a common set of beliefs, and that beliefs fall on a continuum. They don't. People don't vote Socialist because they want a Socialist form of government, and the more socialist it gets, the happier they are. People vote Socialist (or Communist, Fascist, Liberal, whatever) because that party promises X, Y, and Z, and the voter decides which party's platform best conicides with their self-interest. Goldberg sees the world through a lens of ideological purity, where parties are evaluated in terms of their consistency to some dogma, as opposed to their ability to deliver on promises to their interest groups, which is actually how people decide what parties to join.
It's important to point out that the popular equivalents, the runaway jury and nullifying jury, are quite legal and sometimes even celebrated in our legal system, even though both act within the legal system with bad faith.
I think that's sortof a doomed project, because "liberal" and "conservative" are very overloaded and our defintions don't apply to previous eras properly. Most "centrists" in the 1850s would have held a meliorist but tolerant attitude toward slavery, and most fundie Christians, up until the cold war, were populist and redistributionist. Read a William Jennings Bryan or Father Coughlin speech and see how strange their ideology is compared to how we draw the lines today; on the other hand there were people like Robert LaFolette and Neslon Rockefeller, who were rock-ribbed Republicans and conservative in a way, but completely unrecognizable to the current consensus.
A more usefuls scoring might be evaluating how federalist vs. centralist decisions are, or how strongly do the judges define a "taking." Over the arc of US History, many aspects of our discourse have become remarkably small-l liberal, like our attitude toward racism and slavery, while other aspects have trended more small-c conservative, like our attitude toward taxation and civic religion.
If the SCOTUS decides this case on the sole basis of the legal statutes (that government shall not hire or promote on the basis of skin color), then the results of the exam will be upheld.
I don't see how you can just state that ad arguendo. If a court finds in favor of New Haven, they are strictly applying federal law. Federal law might be quota-ist, but it's the law. Is the court supposed to write its own laws, or apply it's own reading of the constitution when the Congress has specifically stated that it interprets the Constitution differently? Conservatives only want "impartial rulings" and "strict construction" when it takes destroys people's civil rights and substantive due process, and when a court actually finds impartially for those things, they demand activism. Both sides play this game. Just find good judges and let them do their job-- throw them out if they're corrupt, but otherwise if they can convince 4 of their peers, give them the benefit of the doubt.
Tufte might grouse though about all the small fonts and the overloading of the vertical axis...
Some things jump right out at me...
You can see the often-reported phenomenon of justices generally getting more liberal the longer they stay on the court. Conervative justices in particular tend to trend mellower and mellower over time.
You can see how some justices, like Frankfurter, will trend contra the overall trend of the court. As the court got bluer into the 50s, he got redder.
How is it that SEVEN of the nine justices who voted in favor of Brown were conservative? There's no way that case would get a unanimous decision today, and conservatives today are much more moderate on social issues than they were in the 50s. This is probably an artifact of the single-dimension grading process than anything else. Alot of Progressive Democrats through WW2 and into the 50s were happy to call themselves racist, and many Republicans still marginally considered themslves enlightened party-of-Lincoln non-racists. There was a big realignment of constiuencies around '68, and this tends to skew the definitional "liberal"/"conservative" meanings.
Amen. There was a very similar silver rush in the late 1970s when the Hunt Brothers tried to corner the market. My dad told me he started shorting silver the day he heard about women hosting parties at their houses to mail off their silverware for cash. Vending machine + cash2gold = commodity bubble. And behold there was a silver crash.
What makes them a good trusted introducer for keys?
They certify my web interface with several banks. My banks trust them, I know my bank exists.
I really didn't mean to pick an x.509 versus PGP fight, I just mentioned x.509 because it was easier for me to set up on my mail program. I've never said anything bad about PGP.
It doesn't sound like your mother cares about having secure emails. Even if she had it all set up for her, what good would it do if she didn't understand how they worked? Internet security only works if you understand the principles. you can't just "set it up" for someone and let it be. Security is a process.
On Apple Mail, all I had to do is download the cert and drag it into my Keychain. Mail saw it matched one of my accounts and I instantly could sign and encrypt emails. Outlook has a few checkboxes, but it's no harder than configuring Exchange. The challenge is getting people to use it and understand how it works. And they only do that if they actually care about secure comms.
Using Gmail with https, your mail is secure between the box you're sitting at an Gmail itself, but Gmail's just an MTA like anybody else, and the messages move from MTA to MTA unencrypted.
The mechanics of the process can be mastered in an hour. Understanding the principles involved takes a few hours of reading. The only thing keeping people from learning the tech is apathy- if they cared about sending private, authenticated emails they would meet you halfway. But they don't. If it's very important to you, just refuse to send them emails until they get a cert, or they use PGP.
You don't get security on the Internet "for free."
You don't have to wait for government action to keep the NSA from reading you personal email. Get your friends and family a Freemail x.509 cert from Thawte (no cost, a Verisign cert costs $30/yr) and use S/MIME.
It sounds like you're comparing a tool to create Flash animations with a standard that defines vector graphics, which is a bit apples-oranges. A canvas tag allows animations, because it's a DOM object and can be modified, but the low-level semantic is the Painter's Model; you stroke to it and demand it to redraw thru Javascript. There's no reason you couldn't build a tool that allowed you to tween bezier curves... the tool doesn't exist, but the primitives in HTML5 are perfectly complimentary to animated paths.
Well, you'd at least need someone to create an editor to make it easy to develop.
Cappucino Web Framework, though it's designed to work exactly like Mac OS X/Objective-C/Cocoa, so there's some mindshare issues, but its built on Javascript, and you use Apple's Interface Builder to create interfaces for it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorta cribbing from his summary, but I did RTFA...
Pro:
Con
Most important lesson IMHO: "Everything is marketing."
His issues with the platform and the resources available on a BB really bring the differences with iPhone OSX and BB into relief. An iPhone is guaranteed to have a particular hardware config, and be very capacious in RAM and drive space, and has very teh shiny widgets and will always have the latest APIs; it also provides a brainless e-commerce platform to sell and install your app, to the point where buying a mobile app could be considered impulsive. You pay for all this with the fact that the Apple overmind decides if you can sell your app or not and takes its cut.
"Beware the Roboferrets, my son!
With probes that snoot and ferrule claws!
Beware the cargo rats, and shun
Their infradigious smugseeking maws!"
I know! All of my friends were talking about how they were holding off on buying an iPhone until it got a proper Commodore emulator....
Also, culture does not last. Look at fall of the great civilizations in history - the Babolonians, the Persians, the Romans, etc.
Wealth is even more transient. Do Crassus's children "buy power" in our modern world with the money their ancestor made? Wealth dissipates.
I think when you misunderstand the word "culture" to mean "a civilization" or "an empire" or "a continuous polity." The Romans are gone, but you are reading this post in their alphabet, and I know who Crassus was. The cultural artifacts of Rome and Persia are with us just as much as they were when they were created. The only thing that's changed is the particular identities of the rich people who patronize them. Culture, to an extent, stands apart from politics and economy.
In the modern world, Money buys Power. More Money = more Power, more Power = more Control.
There are a few very, very wealthy Burmese and Iranian people that would disagree. The belief that material wealth confers political power or legitimacy is a particularly American notion. Religion, and cultural institutions like monarchies carry just as much sway.
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, but your account of "modern historians" seems to come out of thin air; no historian within the realm of citation has ever claimed Lincoln was a Democrat, or that the labels got "swapped" somehow. The Republican party isn't essentially racist; US political parties don't essentially stand for anything. The racist block of poor southern whites simply just stopped voting Dem and stated voting Republican after the LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act. Southerners had been wary of the Democratic coalition ever since FDR, but he was able to keep them in the tent by buying them off with federal allocations on projects like the TVA and rural electrificatio. The dead hand of this is still with us: the federal government still over-allocates to states that were critical to the dixiecrat electoral block.
The assertion that the southern strategy was a myth is prima facie ridiculous-- there's decades of documentation and scholarship, and most of the originators, including Phillips, Moynihan and Buchanan acknowledge that it exists and played a critical role in forming the post-Voting Rights Act Republican coalition. They stripped the Democratic party of dixiecrats by becoming a party of states' rights, opposing federal writ when it came to affirmative action and busing.
Goldberg's thesis is ahistorical. He tries to draw progressivism and liberalism together with socialism and fascism, but he reduces partisan alignment to philosophy. People vote for socialists without believing in socialism, because the fact is that most parties who declare themselves socialist, or fascist, or liberal simply aren't. Socialists, which were called "Social Democrats" in Germany were hell-bent against National-Socialists in Germany; and both detested the Communists. Progressives in the US had a strong historical relationship to the church, and while areligious progressives in the 30s favored eugenics policies religious ones absolutely did not. And all of this is separate from Sanger, unless you consider birth control tantamount to eugenics, which a lot of people honestly disagree with. The "liberal fascism" argument is born out of the belief that people identify with political parties because they share a common set of beliefs, and that beliefs fall on a continuum. They don't. People don't vote Socialist because they want a Socialist form of government, and the more socialist it gets, the happier they are. People vote Socialist (or Communist, Fascist, Liberal, whatever) because that party promises X, Y, and Z, and the voter decides which party's platform best conicides with their self-interest. Goldberg sees the world through a lens of ideological purity, where parties are evaluated in terms of their consistency to some dogma, as opposed to their ability to deliver on promises to their interest groups, which is actually how people decide what parties to join.
It's important to point out that the popular equivalents, the runaway jury and nullifying jury, are quite legal and sometimes even celebrated in our legal system, even though both act within the legal system with bad faith.
I think that's sortof a doomed project, because "liberal" and "conservative" are very overloaded and our defintions don't apply to previous eras properly. Most "centrists" in the 1850s would have held a meliorist but tolerant attitude toward slavery, and most fundie Christians, up until the cold war, were populist and redistributionist. Read a William Jennings Bryan or Father Coughlin speech and see how strange their ideology is compared to how we draw the lines today; on the other hand there were people like Robert LaFolette and Neslon Rockefeller, who were rock-ribbed Republicans and conservative in a way, but completely unrecognizable to the current consensus.
A more usefuls scoring might be evaluating how federalist vs. centralist decisions are, or how strongly do the judges define a "taking." Over the arc of US History, many aspects of our discourse have become remarkably small-l liberal, like our attitude toward racism and slavery, while other aspects have trended more small-c conservative, like our attitude toward taxation and civic religion.
If the SCOTUS decides this case on the sole basis of the legal statutes (that government shall not hire or promote on the basis of skin color), then the results of the exam will be upheld.
I don't see how you can just state that ad arguendo. If a court finds in favor of New Haven, they are strictly applying federal law. Federal law might be quota-ist, but it's the law. Is the court supposed to write its own laws, or apply it's own reading of the constitution when the Congress has specifically stated that it interprets the Constitution differently? Conservatives only want "impartial rulings" and "strict construction" when it takes destroys people's civil rights and substantive due process, and when a court actually finds impartially for those things, they demand activism. Both sides play this game. Just find good judges and let them do their job-- throw them out if they're corrupt, but otherwise if they can convince 4 of their peers, give them the benefit of the doubt.
Well, I didn't say what proportion of them got more liberal :)
Those only work in the streets of San Francisco ;)
Tufte might grouse though about all the small fonts and the overloading of the vertical axis...
Some things jump right out at me...
on iPhone I have proper GCC/G++ compilers Which you can't use without jailbreaking, so your argument is instantly moot.
What are you talking about? Apple's iPhone SDK ships gcc/g++. C++ and C are both supported languages on iPhone OS X.
If you go to use that free space later, you find that area, and drop shit into it.
Knock it off with all the fancy jargon!
Amen. There was a very similar silver rush in the late 1970s when the Hunt Brothers tried to corner the market. My dad told me he started shorting silver the day he heard about women hosting parties at their houses to mail off their silverware for cash. Vending machine + cash2gold = commodity bubble. And behold there was a silver crash.
The Libyans are our friends now.
What makes them a good trusted introducer for keys?
They certify my web interface with several banks. My banks trust them, I know my bank exists.
I really didn't mean to pick an x.509 versus PGP fight, I just mentioned x.509 because it was easier for me to set up on my mail program. I've never said anything bad about PGP.
I don't think they can get through a 1024-bit key that quickly, unless they have technology that is plain science fiction.
"green message means it's a secure channel"
This attitude will be the Death of the Internet.
It doesn't sound like your mother cares about having secure emails. Even if she had it all set up for her, what good would it do if she didn't understand how they worked? Internet security only works if you understand the principles. you can't just "set it up" for someone and let it be. Security is a process.
On Apple Mail, all I had to do is download the cert and drag it into my Keychain. Mail saw it matched one of my accounts and I instantly could sign and encrypt emails. Outlook has a few checkboxes, but it's no harder than configuring Exchange. The challenge is getting people to use it and understand how it works. And they only do that if they actually care about secure comms.
Uh, you pull them down with https. If https isn't secure enough, than an x.509 cert certainly isn't, and you'd better try something else.
Fishing expeditions if you will.
Using Gmail with https, your mail is secure between the box you're sitting at an Gmail itself, but Gmail's just an MTA like anybody else, and the messages move from MTA to MTA unencrypted.
The mechanics of the process can be mastered in an hour. Understanding the principles involved takes a few hours of reading. The only thing keeping people from learning the tech is apathy- if they cared about sending private, authenticated emails they would meet you halfway. But they don't. If it's very important to you, just refuse to send them emails until they get a cert, or they use PGP. You don't get security on the Internet "for free."
You don't have to wait for government action to keep the NSA from reading you personal email. Get your friends and family a Freemail x.509 cert from Thawte (no cost, a Verisign cert costs $30/yr) and use S/MIME.
It sounds like you're comparing a tool to create Flash animations with a standard that defines vector graphics, which is a bit apples-oranges. A canvas tag allows animations, because it's a DOM object and can be modified, but the low-level semantic is the Painter's Model; you stroke to it and demand it to redraw thru Javascript. There's no reason you couldn't build a tool that allowed you to tween bezier curves... the tool doesn't exist, but the primitives in HTML5 are perfectly complimentary to animated paths.
Well, you'd at least need someone to create an editor to make it easy to develop.
Cappucino Web Framework, though it's designed to work exactly like Mac OS X/Objective-C/Cocoa, so there's some mindshare issues, but its built on Javascript, and you use Apple's Interface Builder to create interfaces for it.