Of course, since Hulu is blocked on mobile platforms because Adobe stupidly gave platform developers, you know, the people who pay money for Adobe software, exactly what they wanted.
You're using an equals sign for both and assignment and a comparison here. Even though this is pseudocode, you couldn't write a parser that could compile it.
Skill and talent are not correlated with value as entertainment or art. I am not here to bury Bieber's talent, just to point out that the system that aligns that talent with lowest-common-denominator audience-pandering tripe and the vast riches to be earned has not been demolished by YouTube; in fact YouTube and the Internet has made the modern Bread and Circuses all the easier to manufacture and distribute.
The Internet is the most powerful force for democratizing Art humanity has ever devised. And nothing is more corrosive to Art than democratizing influence.
If I ask you to write a paper on a specific book, but you decide to turn in a creative essay because "it is more valuable of an exercise", I'm going to grade you on how well you accomplished writing a paper for that book. If you really care about "the learning value of the assignment", then I can laugh when you whine about the grade
This is the sort of typical lazy anti-intellectualism that Americans seem to cherish. Only in America can you decide you don't need the lessons in a book without going to the trouble of actually reading it. At least our forebearers read their interlocutors and rejected them on the merits, instead of glibly claiming that the reading was a waste of time.
Your defintion of intelligent students "challenging" their education is simply the recipe of a dilletente, an intellectual phony. The only skill these people posses is how to rationalize their agreement with whoever is signing their paycheck. Claiming you don't need to read a book in order to refute it's usefulness is the death of Reason.
Probably because when you're 20 years old you know what you want to do in life
If this was the case, then this student was a fool. This is the twenty-first century, where everyone has three careers and most people have a midlife crisis where they reevaluate their objectives and realize they wish they'd paid more attention in their liberal arts classes.
I've had a student argue that the skills involved in plagiarizing a paper about Nabokov's Pale Fire were more valuable than reading the great novel and doing the thinking and writing involved in producing an original paper.
Wow, it would have been at least marginally clever if he'd claimed Zemblan diplomatic immunity...
One might point your student to Laughter in the Dark: you know, the Nabokov novel about the dilettante who's self-satisfaction and self-deception are his undoing.
The internet has made is so any Tom, Dick or Harry can post their music on YouTube and get a million hits.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, may I present Exhibit A of the Brave New World. If the ascendency of YouTube was supposed to spell the end of purile, formulaic entertainment, existing for the purpose of turning eyeballs into money, the revolution is faltering.
All the internet is doing is making these lazy ass fat cats in Hollywood have to go out an earn their cash, instead of applying the same crappy formula to everything they touch and just expecting it to work.
I'm sure if some Hollywood producer had the desire to slap AdWords and Flash banners on a daily dose of four Fandroid articles, two trolling Apple articles, and one "O woe is Steve Wozniak" post, they would do it.
WikiLeaks just tells us things that benefit leakers. The people who release this information aren't pure, goodhearted people. They do it because they're trying to discredit their enemies in the bureaucracy. Watch as WikiLeaks reports on abuses in Iraq, and this is not used as evidence the wars are wrong, but that president X merely isn't doing an adequate job fighting them, and president Y would do much better...
Setting standards is fine, but the question is who sets those standards, and wether those standards will be set in the best interests of the community of developers and hardware vendors, in the interests of Google, or in the interest of users. Using access to Android source as a club to force OEMs to use Google search, to hamstring Facebook and other service providers, or to only provide the kind of phone Google sees fit isn't standardization in the interests of consumers.
What's different this version as opposed to others that only 20 apps are considered 'real'?
A "real" Honeycomb tablet app would use Fragments and rely on all of those fancy tablet features that are keeping Honeycomb from being open-sourced (or so we are informed).
Android apps rescale more intelligently than "2x" mode on an iPad but a lot of them don't do the "right thing" in terms of layout, for example the pre-Honeycomb Facebook app on a tablet will expand its view to the entire size of the screen and scale its fonts appropriately, but the icons in the window retain the same smartphone-optimized size and matrix. The developer can account for these things but it's something they have to do on their own; developing for Android doesn't automatically provide this for free.
There are 300,000 iPhone/iOS apps, and 65,000 of those apps target the iPad screen size. The platform requires devs do actually make two separate versions but this doesn't seem to be a significant speed bump for people. The fact that there are exactly two screen sizes actually seems to make their lives easier.
This I have no doubt, but to pursue them so doggedly even when they don't have a good business case for them is a little pathological.
I've seen very good demonstrations of home automation, particularly w/r/t Smart Grid and other kinds of economic integration, like consumable preordering. BUt offering it as a supplemental take on the tablet is very weird. Similarly I've never seen a particularly compelling voice-control system in real life, but between Watson and the computer in Sunshine you can see how an always-available expert system could have compelling uses. But again, MS doesn't sell compelling products and seems to only care about using voice control as a dumb keyboard.
Companies that possesses statelike powers in real-world society ultimately come from being cozy with the state itself.
It's just a question of perspective, wether AT&T pulls the state into its orbit is or the state pulls AT&T in hers. State capitalism is better understood in Gramsci's framework, and as a function of social hegemony. It's not really a libertarian/statist issue per se.
The assertion that the Bell System was an "unnatural" monopoly is a bit of a straw man, nobody claims that AT&T came to run the whole system on its own. What's remarkable is that between Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt most of the progressive/populist pressure on the government was to nationalize the telephone system, as has been done in just about every other jurisdiction of the Earth. FDR rejected this, ironically considering his reputation today, and instead chose the cartel solution, such that there was still a nominal "private" company running the phone system for a profit, while it was protected from competition enough to do all the things the nationalized carriers were doing, like undertaking huge capital expenditures on undersea cables and trunks, and expanding telephony to rural areas where wired telephone service has never been profitable.
Where all of these critiques fall flat is in the rigid line drawing around acts of corporations and the acts of state. A sufficiently influential company possesses statelike powers in any real-world society, and will always try to meld government policy to its design; any government powerful enough to defend property rights will perforce have the power to decide what is and what is not ownable, and this power will always be drawing arbitrary lines protecting business plan X from business plan Y. This is unavoidable and arguing as if this is "unnatural" is a bit of a con.
The company called "AT&T" is not, was not, and has only a tenuous relationship with the entity "Ma Bell," American Telephone a Telegraph. The company called AT&T is actually the old SBC, Southwestern Bell Communications, one of the RBOCs, that took over AT&Ts name and trademarks after buying the AT&T Corporation in 2005.
Just short of mind control, really. We're holding your future self for ransom and if you don't put your money in the the 401(k) he's gonna get it! It's also weirdly like the Wolfenstein HUD in that your character's face is used to communicate status.
Such a technology as this is really an abandonment of rationalism -- we concede we can't use empirical arguments and evidence about saving and retirement to convince people to save, so now we'll just scare them. Notice that people are only manipulated into saving, and not into thinking about what to put their money into, which is the actual decision people are making. How will your face look if you discover in 20 years the stocks you were buying were a house of cards, and that the only reason you were putting your money into them is because your corporate HR department was guilting you. You should decide how to save their money with a sound mind, free of the sort of manufactured anxieties bank and stock broker marketers use to induce new customers, which is all this is.
Advertising Company that uses highly invasive technology.
"Advertising" doesn't completely cover it. What they really are is an Content Brokerage. People who have content got to Google to get help selling it, and people who want content go to Google to try to find it, and Google matches up the two parties. This in itself would be okay, except Google has no competition, and uses its corpus of data in order to front-run content and service seekers and steer business to the highest bidder (or just to Google's own service), even if it wasn't what the seeker was looking for.
This is an ancient problem. The automatic telephone switch was invented by an undertaker because he was convinced the operator at the telephone exchange was listening in to calls and discovering when people were dying, and then telling her husband, a competing undertaker.
I can not lay my hand on any part of the Union Constitution which gives the Executive branch power to act like the Judicial branch.
The executive branch has people that may be called "judges" or "magistrates" or "arbitrators" -- they use them all the time to decide if people are entitled to certain Social Security benefits, Section 8 housing, certain tax regimes, etc. but they are not "judges" in the sense of the federal Constitution, because they are not presiding over an "Article 3 Tribunal."
If TWC comes up with a good idea, we're not going to attack them just for being TWC.
Time Warner is using its position as middleman to screw over its vendors and maintain its iron grip over channel lineup and billing. This is not a "good idea."
Slashdot Mirror
Why is the solution to every problem of the Information Age a benevolent Google dictatorship?
Of course, since Hulu is blocked on mobile platforms because Adobe stupidly gave platform developers, you know, the people who pay money for Adobe software, exactly what they wanted.
FTFY
You're getting less both ways, the only difference is who's being honest about it.
"Keep webservers off the cloud!" is a strange rallying cry.
You're using an equals sign for both and assignment and a comparison here. Even though this is pseudocode, you couldn't write a parser that could compile it.
Skill and talent are not correlated with value as entertainment or art. I am not here to bury Bieber's talent, just to point out that the system that aligns that talent with lowest-common-denominator audience-pandering tripe and the vast riches to be earned has not been demolished by YouTube; in fact YouTube and the Internet has made the modern Bread and Circuses all the easier to manufacture and distribute.
The Internet is the most powerful force for democratizing Art humanity has ever devised. And nothing is more corrosive to Art than democratizing influence.
This is the sort of typical lazy anti-intellectualism that Americans seem to cherish. Only in America can you decide you don't need the lessons in a book without going to the trouble of actually reading it. At least our forebearers read their interlocutors and rejected them on the merits, instead of glibly claiming that the reading was a waste of time.
Your defintion of intelligent students "challenging" their education is simply the recipe of a dilletente, an intellectual phony. The only skill these people posses is how to rationalize their agreement with whoever is signing their paycheck. Claiming you don't need to read a book in order to refute it's usefulness is the death of Reason.
If this was the case, then this student was a fool. This is the twenty-first century, where everyone has three careers and most people have a midlife crisis where they reevaluate their objectives and realize they wish they'd paid more attention in their liberal arts classes.
Wow, it would have been at least marginally clever if he'd claimed Zemblan diplomatic immunity...
One might point your student to Laughter in the Dark: you know, the Nabokov novel about the dilettante who's self-satisfaction and self-deception are his undoing.
I before E except after C...
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, may I present Exhibit A of the Brave New World. If the ascendency of YouTube was supposed to spell the end of purile, formulaic entertainment, existing for the purpose of turning eyeballs into money, the revolution is faltering.
I'm sure if some Hollywood producer had the desire to slap AdWords and Flash banners on a daily dose of four Fandroid articles, two trolling Apple articles, and one "O woe is Steve Wozniak" post, they would do it.
WikiLeaks just tells us things that benefit leakers. The people who release this information aren't pure, goodhearted people. They do it because they're trying to discredit their enemies in the bureaucracy. Watch as WikiLeaks reports on abuses in Iraq, and this is not used as evidence the wars are wrong, but that president X merely isn't doing an adequate job fighting them, and president Y would do much better...
Setting standards is fine, but the question is who sets those standards, and wether those standards will be set in the best interests of the community of developers and hardware vendors, in the interests of Google, or in the interest of users. Using access to Android source as a club to force OEMs to use Google search, to hamstring Facebook and other service providers, or to only provide the kind of phone Google sees fit isn't standardization in the interests of consumers.
A "real" Honeycomb tablet app would use Fragments and rely on all of those fancy tablet features that are keeping Honeycomb from being open-sourced (or so we are informed).
Android apps rescale more intelligently than "2x" mode on an iPad but a lot of them don't do the "right thing" in terms of layout, for example the pre-Honeycomb Facebook app on a tablet will expand its view to the entire size of the screen and scale its fonts appropriately, but the icons in the window retain the same smartphone-optimized size and matrix. The developer can account for these things but it's something they have to do on their own; developing for Android doesn't automatically provide this for free.
There are 300,000 iPhone/iOS apps, and 65,000 of those apps target the iPad screen size. The platform requires devs do actually make two separate versions but this doesn't seem to be a significant speed bump for people. The fact that there are exactly two screen sizes actually seems to make their lives easier.
This I have no doubt, but to pursue them so doggedly even when they don't have a good business case for them is a little pathological.
I've seen very good demonstrations of home automation, particularly w/r/t Smart Grid and other kinds of economic integration, like consumable preordering. BUt offering it as a supplemental take on the tablet is very weird. Similarly I've never seen a particularly compelling voice-control system in real life, but between Watson and the computer in Sunshine you can see how an always-available expert system could have compelling uses. But again, MS doesn't sell compelling products and seems to only care about using voice control as a dumb keyboard.
And each will be operated by the five richest princes of Europe, and require a cooling system the size of Niagara falls :)
There are two Zombie Technologies that will Just Not Die at Microsoft:
It's just a question of perspective, wether AT&T pulls the state into its orbit is or the state pulls AT&T in hers. State capitalism is better understood in Gramsci's framework, and as a function of social hegemony. It's not really a libertarian/statist issue per se.
The assertion that the Bell System was an "unnatural" monopoly is a bit of a straw man, nobody claims that AT&T came to run the whole system on its own. What's remarkable is that between Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt most of the progressive/populist pressure on the government was to nationalize the telephone system, as has been done in just about every other jurisdiction of the Earth. FDR rejected this, ironically considering his reputation today, and instead chose the cartel solution, such that there was still a nominal "private" company running the phone system for a profit, while it was protected from competition enough to do all the things the nationalized carriers were doing, like undertaking huge capital expenditures on undersea cables and trunks, and expanding telephony to rural areas where wired telephone service has never been profitable.
Where all of these critiques fall flat is in the rigid line drawing around acts of corporations and the acts of state. A sufficiently influential company possesses statelike powers in any real-world society, and will always try to meld government policy to its design; any government powerful enough to defend property rights will perforce have the power to decide what is and what is not ownable, and this power will always be drawing arbitrary lines protecting business plan X from business plan Y. This is unavoidable and arguing as if this is "unnatural" is a bit of a con.
The company called "AT&T" is not, was not, and has only a tenuous relationship with the entity "Ma Bell," American Telephone a Telegraph. The company called AT&T is actually the old SBC, Southwestern Bell Communications, one of the RBOCs, that took over AT&Ts name and trademarks after buying the AT&T Corporation in 2005.
You can remap all the text field/text editor/text view responder actions if you wish, but it's really just a question of what you're the most used to.
Just short of mind control, really. We're holding your future self for ransom and if you don't put your money in the the 401(k) he's gonna get it! It's also weirdly like the Wolfenstein HUD in that your character's face is used to communicate status.
Such a technology as this is really an abandonment of rationalism -- we concede we can't use empirical arguments and evidence about saving and retirement to convince people to save, so now we'll just scare them. Notice that people are only manipulated into saving, and not into thinking about what to put their money into, which is the actual decision people are making. How will your face look if you discover in 20 years the stocks you were buying were a house of cards, and that the only reason you were putting your money into them is because your corporate HR department was guilting you. You should decide how to save their money with a sound mind, free of the sort of manufactured anxieties bank and stock broker marketers use to induce new customers, which is all this is.
"Advertising" doesn't completely cover it. What they really are is an Content Brokerage. People who have content got to Google to get help selling it, and people who want content go to Google to try to find it, and Google matches up the two parties. This in itself would be okay, except Google has no competition, and uses its corpus of data in order to front-run content and service seekers and steer business to the highest bidder (or just to Google's own service), even if it wasn't what the seeker was looking for.
This is an ancient problem. The automatic telephone switch was invented by an undertaker because he was convinced the operator at the telephone exchange was listening in to calls and discovering when people were dying, and then telling her husband, a competing undertaker.
The executive branch has people that may be called "judges" or "magistrates" or "arbitrators" -- they use them all the time to decide if people are entitled to certain Social Security benefits, Section 8 housing, certain tax regimes, etc. but they are not "judges" in the sense of the federal Constitution, because they are not presiding over an "Article 3 Tribunal."
Time Warner is using its position as middleman to screw over its vendors and maintain its iron grip over channel lineup and billing. This is not a "good idea."