You do own the phone. You're free to do whatever you want with it if you can figure it out. Oh, you mean you want Apple to do all the work for you, release all the documentation and provide you with the tools you need? Sorry, but they have no obligation to do that. You're still free to do it on your own, but then don't come crying for Apple to replace it for free when you void the warranty trying to hack/mod your hardware. You are free in every way to use the hardware as you wish, what you are really angry at is that Apple makes no attempts to help you in that endeavor.
We already have a great, natural, cheap (free, even!), way to sequester carbon. It's called a tree. Plant more trees, plant them everywhere. Unfortunately much of the work will need to be done in South America where their governments are even less inclined to listen to environmental arguments than the government here, but the process of natural reforestation in the rain forests is even faster than it is in the US and would happen in just 1-2 decades once human influence is removed from an area.
Finding a new livelihood for those people displaced from their slash and burn plantations and cattle ranches is the biggest problem. Although much of that activity is fueled by American over-demand for beef which is a problem we can solve with policy here at home.
That's still way too long. 10 years (no renewals) is the max I would ever agree to for a system to be legitimately balancing the needs of the public domain with the promotion of arts and science.
The only people who have ever referred to him as "the messiah" are those on the far right. It says more about their simplistic view of the world than it does of their opponents.
I'm sure that's not even an exhaustive list of the requirements. So my question is, how did we ever find someone in the past if we've been using THAT as the bar you have to meet to be considered?
Wouldn't it be easier to take the people who are smart and have the physical qualifications (or even just the physical potential, you could train them like soldiers do and get them into better shape) enough to do the job and then train them to do it? Seems like an absurd parody of the job market at large. Entry level position available, must have at least 1 PhD and 10 years experience...
Because DRM et al that I mentioned reduces the value of the product. It's not worth it to me @$60, but at free it is worth it. It would be worth it at $0.99 or maybe $5-10 for a AAA title, but in the current form, it's not worth what they're asking for it. But since I have an ethical and free alternative, I turn to that.
I buy plenty of Apps and games for iOS despite the DRM and other annoyances because the price is right (usually $0.99).
And $8.00/hr is the minimum I'm *allowed* to sell my labor by for by law, but it's not the minimum I would consider selling my labor for. You'd have to pay me more than that or give some other benefit. So that screws up your oversimplified equation.
What he says is spot on, but I think pricing is still a problem. $60-80 for a game is simply too much. I won't pay that, and certainly not when I have to put up with onerous DRM, micro payments to make the game worthwhile or allow me to be competitive online, and in game advertisements. You can't have it all; I'm looking at you, EA.
So that's why I take what I want for free. It's too expensive, and there's enough of a disconnect between the legal definition of theft and copyright infringement that I feel it's an ethical choice to make to say I'm not going to support the current copyright model, I'm going to undermine it by making it less profitable.
Eventually when things change maybe I'll start participating in the market again, but copyright, patents, "IP" was meant to be a two way street. Lobbyists and interest groups have thrown up road blocks on the side of the street that flows back to the public good. So I feel no responsibility to hold up my end.
I prefer to take a page from socialism, and a page from libertarianism, and create a new book that works better than either one alone. Nothing in your personal life affects me, so I should have no say over it. I don't care who you marry, have sex with, what you put in your body or if you end your life. But your economic life effects me and everyone else in this society, so it should be partially regulated. With the right balance, and the a healthy amount of vigilance by the populace, this system can work. It's worked in the past, it works now, it can work for our future.
I seriously doubt that's going on in The App Store. In fact, apps can't access location functionality without your explicit consent. And you're notified in the location bar whenever that functionality is active. Apple is very proactive in enforcing their rules. If they let apps have their run of the hardware functions it would seriously effect battery life (something that's already been a problem).
And then there's sandboxing. An app can't access your contacts, for example. So as long as you're only getting your software from the App Store and not a jailbroke Cydia repo, you're going to be relatively safe. Now the question is, do you trust Apple?
If it just makes calls, sends and receives text messages/emails, and has basic mapping and location function, and you don't mind it being substantially larger and uglier ("ruggedized") compared to current smart phones, then 240 hours is probably doable given current technology. Take something the size of an iphone or a bit larger and make it twice as thick, the extra space being entirely devoted to a battery. Hell, coat the back in a PV panel and you can charge it by just laying it out in the sun--no lack of that in the places we usually do our fighting. Cover the whole thing in some sort of rubber waterproof case.
Then charge the government $5k/unit and you're done:)
These version numbers are getting ridiculous. They'll be up to 2x.0 by next year at this rate. And every time they manage to break something.
I switched to Chrome a while ago, but now I'm using Safari because I like the OS X Lion integration that it seems only Apple is interested in or capable of providing. Native gestures (which FF now has, apparently), integrated dictionary lookup, autocorrect built into the spell checker. And it just feels faster, even when FF has no add-ons enabled.
No one is suggesting revisiting those scenarios. No one is proposing them as good solutions. No one's saying, "Man those Nazis had the right idea with that T4 Action, it's too bad they didn't get to finish the job." (at least no one who is taken seriously here).
Right, because those are the only two options. Nice false dichotomy you've set up there. Almost had me convinced that simply whistling past the graveyard is the best course of action
There just aren't enough resources for everyone human on Earth to live like a Westerner. So if it takes getting the entire world up to US standard of consumption to get the birthrate down, then we're doomed, because that's physically impossible.
Natural climate change might not be changeable or preventable. Human contributed climate change absolutely is, and the point of trying to do something about it is that while natural climate change might not be so bad, natural climate change added to anthropogenic climate change very well might be. So we should work on affecting the part of the equation we have control over.
How about hormonal birth control? Condoms? Education? Empowering women? Whenever someone speaks about dealing with population control out come the sado-masochist fetishists who project their worst fears (or fantasies) on what's actually being said. No one is suggesting any of the things you first mentioned, you don't contribute anything by bringing those things up.
Do you realize that it's possible for what you say to be true (and I agree with the general point) AND for it to also be true that humans are capable of altering the environment? Given that, it's also possible that the natural changes wouldn't be so bad, but the human caused changes might end up being very bad for us. So shouldn't we do something to stop the changes we can stop?
Why do people always think that reducing the population requires some sort of genocide? You realize it's also possible to just have a birthrate below replacement level? Soylent Green entirely optional.
I don't think we're at the carrying capacity of the Earth yet, but I think Homo sapiens are the only species so far that will be capable of artificially surpassing the carrying capacity for a short amount of time which will lead to a period of...genocide, at least in some localized populations who aren't lucky enough to have a strong government with a powerful military. So by not addressing the problem now in a humane way we might end up having exactly what you fear.
I happen to think both forms of bonuses are wrong. Tipping "culture" in the US is compulsory because restaurant owners enjoy having their customers directly subsidize the wages of their workers so that they don't have to pay their workers a livable wage.
No, because then you'd also remove the Government's (what you call politician's) ability to work on behalf of the people, which is also unacceptable. I want the government to do certain things such as provide for national defense, police and fire protection, build and maintain roads, test food and water safety, provide health care for all, fund research, and many other things.
I realize you're probably libertarian or conservative, but most people agree that some collective action by society through the apparatus we call government is useful and necessary. What people argue about is how much the government should do. I think it should be doing a lot more, but there's also some things it does currently that I wish it would do less of. I think a natural cycle of competition, growth, mergers of corporations, the emergence of a single victorious company in a given sector, and then the breaking apart of that corporation to begin the cycle again is the best way to handle it.
Or they could, you know, be happy with making a little less money and giving their customers a better deal. The scales are so tilted toward the corporations and away from the customers/consumers that I struggle to have any sympathy for a bank or any other business that has to make a little less profit so that their customers can not be exploited. People are waking up and realizing that the scare tactic/threats from businesses saying they'll shut down if they're a tiny bit less profitable are pure bluff. If we stand up to them, they'll shrug and take it, being happy that they're still allowed to make SOME money and haven't been nationalized outright. Business should be scared of their customers, business should be horrified of the populace and the power they wield BOTH through the market and through government regulation.
Most CUs will reimburse you for the ATM fees, up to a certain point per month, so you could continue using your beloved BoA ATMs even though you don't bank with them.
The narrative of the last 30 years has been: deregulation, things get much worse fo the lower and middle class, bankers convince people that the problem is still too much regulation, more deregulation, things get even worse, bankers blame the remaining regulation, more deregulation still, things get even worse, and on and on.
Now that doesn't mean that all regulation is good, but the only thing worse than bad regulation on the finance sector is no regulation at all.
Slashdot Mirror
You do own the phone. You're free to do whatever you want with it if you can figure it out. Oh, you mean you want Apple to do all the work for you, release all the documentation and provide you with the tools you need? Sorry, but they have no obligation to do that. You're still free to do it on your own, but then don't come crying for Apple to replace it for free when you void the warranty trying to hack/mod your hardware. You are free in every way to use the hardware as you wish, what you are really angry at is that Apple makes no attempts to help you in that endeavor.
We already have a great, natural, cheap (free, even!), way to sequester carbon. It's called a tree. Plant more trees, plant them everywhere. Unfortunately much of the work will need to be done in South America where their governments are even less inclined to listen to environmental arguments than the government here, but the process of natural reforestation in the rain forests is even faster than it is in the US and would happen in just 1-2 decades once human influence is removed from an area.
Finding a new livelihood for those people displaced from their slash and burn plantations and cattle ranches is the biggest problem. Although much of that activity is fueled by American over-demand for beef which is a problem we can solve with policy here at home.
That's still way too long. 10 years (no renewals) is the max I would ever agree to for a system to be legitimately balancing the needs of the public domain with the promotion of arts and science.
The only people who have ever referred to him as "the messiah" are those on the far right. It says more about their simplistic view of the world than it does of their opponents.
I'm sure that's not even an exhaustive list of the requirements. So my question is, how did we ever find someone in the past if we've been using THAT as the bar you have to meet to be considered?
Wouldn't it be easier to take the people who are smart and have the physical qualifications (or even just the physical potential, you could train them like soldiers do and get them into better shape) enough to do the job and then train them to do it? Seems like an absurd parody of the job market at large. Entry level position available, must have at least 1 PhD and 10 years experience...
Good luck, NASA.
In many countries, the price converts to $80+ USD. Australians are routinely gouged in this way.
Because DRM et al that I mentioned reduces the value of the product. It's not worth it to me @$60, but at free it is worth it. It would be worth it at $0.99 or maybe $5-10 for a AAA title, but in the current form, it's not worth what they're asking for it. But since I have an ethical and free alternative, I turn to that.
I buy plenty of Apps and games for iOS despite the DRM and other annoyances because the price is right (usually $0.99).
And $8.00/hr is the minimum I'm *allowed* to sell my labor by for by law, but it's not the minimum I would consider selling my labor for. You'd have to pay me more than that or give some other benefit. So that screws up your oversimplified equation.
But that doesn't put pressure on the system to change.
What he says is spot on, but I think pricing is still a problem. $60-80 for a game is simply too much. I won't pay that, and certainly not when I have to put up with onerous DRM, micro payments to make the game worthwhile or allow me to be competitive online, and in game advertisements. You can't have it all; I'm looking at you, EA.
So that's why I take what I want for free. It's too expensive, and there's enough of a disconnect between the legal definition of theft and copyright infringement that I feel it's an ethical choice to make to say I'm not going to support the current copyright model, I'm going to undermine it by making it less profitable.
Eventually when things change maybe I'll start participating in the market again, but copyright, patents, "IP" was meant to be a two way street. Lobbyists and interest groups have thrown up road blocks on the side of the street that flows back to the public good. So I feel no responsibility to hold up my end.
I prefer to take a page from socialism, and a page from libertarianism, and create a new book that works better than either one alone. Nothing in your personal life affects me, so I should have no say over it. I don't care who you marry, have sex with, what you put in your body or if you end your life. But your economic life effects me and everyone else in this society, so it should be partially regulated. With the right balance, and the a healthy amount of vigilance by the populace, this system can work. It's worked in the past, it works now, it can work for our future.
I seriously doubt that's going on in The App Store. In fact, apps can't access location functionality without your explicit consent. And you're notified in the location bar whenever that functionality is active. Apple is very proactive in enforcing their rules. If they let apps have their run of the hardware functions it would seriously effect battery life (something that's already been a problem).
And then there's sandboxing. An app can't access your contacts, for example. So as long as you're only getting your software from the App Store and not a jailbroke Cydia repo, you're going to be relatively safe. Now the question is, do you trust Apple?
If it just makes calls, sends and receives text messages/emails, and has basic mapping and location function, and you don't mind it being substantially larger and uglier ("ruggedized") compared to current smart phones, then 240 hours is probably doable given current technology. Take something the size of an iphone or a bit larger and make it twice as thick, the extra space being entirely devoted to a battery. Hell, coat the back in a PV panel and you can charge it by just laying it out in the sun--no lack of that in the places we usually do our fighting. Cover the whole thing in some sort of rubber waterproof case.
Then charge the government $5k/unit and you're done :)
These version numbers are getting ridiculous. They'll be up to 2x.0 by next year at this rate. And every time they manage to break something.
I switched to Chrome a while ago, but now I'm using Safari because I like the OS X Lion integration that it seems only Apple is interested in or capable of providing. Native gestures (which FF now has, apparently), integrated dictionary lookup, autocorrect built into the spell checker. And it just feels faster, even when FF has no add-ons enabled.
If FF can do all that I'll switch back.
No one is suggesting revisiting those scenarios. No one is proposing them as good solutions. No one's saying, "Man those Nazis had the right idea with that T4 Action, it's too bad they didn't get to finish the job." (at least no one who is taken seriously here).
pre-industrial civilization or slavery
Right, because those are the only two options. Nice false dichotomy you've set up there. Almost had me convinced that simply whistling past the graveyard is the best course of action
There just aren't enough resources for everyone human on Earth to live like a Westerner. So if it takes getting the entire world up to US standard of consumption to get the birthrate down, then we're doomed, because that's physically impossible.
Natural climate change might not be changeable or preventable. Human contributed climate change absolutely is, and the point of trying to do something about it is that while natural climate change might not be so bad, natural climate change added to anthropogenic climate change very well might be. So we should work on affecting the part of the equation we have control over.
How about hormonal birth control? Condoms? Education? Empowering women? Whenever someone speaks about dealing with population control out come the sado-masochist fetishists who project their worst fears (or fantasies) on what's actually being said. No one is suggesting any of the things you first mentioned, you don't contribute anything by bringing those things up.
Do you realize that it's possible for what you say to be true (and I agree with the general point) AND for it to also be true that humans are capable of altering the environment? Given that, it's also possible that the natural changes wouldn't be so bad, but the human caused changes might end up being very bad for us. So shouldn't we do something to stop the changes we can stop?
Why do people always think that reducing the population requires some sort of genocide? You realize it's also possible to just have a birthrate below replacement level? Soylent Green entirely optional.
I don't think we're at the carrying capacity of the Earth yet, but I think Homo sapiens are the only species so far that will be capable of artificially surpassing the carrying capacity for a short amount of time which will lead to a period of...genocide, at least in some localized populations who aren't lucky enough to have a strong government with a powerful military. So by not addressing the problem now in a humane way we might end up having exactly what you fear.
I happen to think both forms of bonuses are wrong. Tipping "culture" in the US is compulsory because restaurant owners enjoy having their customers directly subsidize the wages of their workers so that they don't have to pay their workers a livable wage.
No, because then you'd also remove the Government's (what you call politician's) ability to work on behalf of the people, which is also unacceptable. I want the government to do certain things such as provide for national defense, police and fire protection, build and maintain roads, test food and water safety, provide health care for all, fund research, and many other things.
I realize you're probably libertarian or conservative, but most people agree that some collective action by society through the apparatus we call government is useful and necessary. What people argue about is how much the government should do. I think it should be doing a lot more, but there's also some things it does currently that I wish it would do less of. I think a natural cycle of competition, growth, mergers of corporations, the emergence of a single victorious company in a given sector, and then the breaking apart of that corporation to begin the cycle again is the best way to handle it.
Or they could, you know, be happy with making a little less money and giving their customers a better deal. The scales are so tilted toward the corporations and away from the customers/consumers that I struggle to have any sympathy for a bank or any other business that has to make a little less profit so that their customers can not be exploited. People are waking up and realizing that the scare tactic/threats from businesses saying they'll shut down if they're a tiny bit less profitable are pure bluff. If we stand up to them, they'll shrug and take it, being happy that they're still allowed to make SOME money and haven't been nationalized outright. Business should be scared of their customers, business should be horrified of the populace and the power they wield BOTH through the market and through government regulation.
Most CUs will reimburse you for the ATM fees, up to a certain point per month, so you could continue using your beloved BoA ATMs even though you don't bank with them.
The narrative of the last 30 years has been: deregulation, things get much worse fo the lower and middle class, bankers convince people that the problem is still too much regulation, more deregulation, things get even worse, bankers blame the remaining regulation, more deregulation still, things get even worse, and on and on.
Now that doesn't mean that all regulation is good, but the only thing worse than bad regulation on the finance sector is no regulation at all.