Apple is making huge inroads in scientific computing. My field is quickly becoming dominated by OS X (Linux is still huge, obviously, but many of the researchers in the U.S. and other wealthy nations have switched over to OS X). Apple will not kill off OS X. Yes, iOS might become the primary OS for many people but Apple won't abandon their large and growing OS X base.
They reportedly paid the big 4 music labels $100 million upfront (likely with ongoing fees paid to them). In any case, you can't deny the clout Apple has in the music industry.
It's worse than that. If we start building more solar energy plants we'll use more of the energy from the sun, causing it to burn out faster. The one positive thing about that is it will counteract global warming because eventually the sun will cool down as we suck all the energy from it.
ESB and ROTJ were both done by different directors. George Lucas is immensely creative; he's a wonderful storyteller. He's got an eye for special effects too. What he's not good at is writing and directing films. He needs to be involved on a creative level and then let other people do the writing and directing (he can help write one of the screenplay drafts). Look at Willow, for example, or the Indiana Jones movies (at least the old ones). That's the involvement he needs in a project. That's the involvement he'd have in a live action Star Wars show, so it would probably be quite good.
I have the same view. I've been eying some nice Asus or Samsung laptops but I'm tired of dealing with Windows. I enjoy using OS X while I merely tolerate Windows. I'd rather put a little extra money in something that I enjoy using.
If it's just a hardware issue, then why does the same hardware work perfectly in Ubuntu? I can run it for days under heavy use and it will be rock solid. If I try the same thing under Windows, it crashes. All my drivers are up to date too. It's a hardware/driver/OS issue, not just a hardware issue. I'd just go with Ubuntu but I also need to be able to run Windows for games and a few other programs. If my computer is stable with Ubuntu but unstable with Windows on it, that's not a viable solution. Yes, I could buy another PC and run Windows but the only use I have for Windows is playing games. All of my other computer use requires either OS X or Linux. I prefer Macs.
I've been checking every day for that back to school sale. I'm finally cutting Microsoft off after 30 too many blue screens in Windows 7 (but Ubuntu manages to run just fine); yeah, I know, it's a driver issue (probably) but after many hours of working on the computer, it's not worth my time to figure out the issue. Apple will not give away iPads but they might give $200 discounts on them.
The "i..." started when Steve Jobs came back as the interim CEO in the late 90s (he was referred to as the iCEO). It wasn't long before the iMac came out and the "i" stuck.
Here's part of the press release: "CUPERTINO, Calif.--Sept. 16, 1997--At its first regularly scheduled meeting last week, Apple's new Board of Directors formalized the role of Steve Jobs by naming him interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company until a new CEO is named.
"At this meeting, the Board of Directors also met with its executive recruiter, John Thompson of Heidrick & Struggles, to review the status of its search for a CEO. The Board expects that a new CEO will be named before the end of the year." Source: http://www.apple.com/ca/press/1997/09/InterimCEO.html
Even if the filtering was/is not terribly effective, it can still be among the most sophisticated in the world. That's not as much a statement of quality as it is a statement of grouping. How many other countries censor like China or Iran do? There aren't a lot. That's why you can have "good" but not completely effective censors and still be among the most sophisticated.:)
I'd have to agree with the Debian/Ubuntu route if you want user friendliness. I've always found Debianesque systems much more manageable than other distros. If I have to provide most of the IT myself, I prefer Debian/Ubuntu. There are some science Debian distros as well (and repositories).
Scientific Linux would likely be faster overall for computationally heavy tasks but it really depends on what you are planning on doing. Debian wouldn't be slow, just not quite as fast as Scientific Linux; but again, that might not matter very much in the big picture.
It's called dissociative personality disorder, by the way. Anyway, just because I like iTunes doesn't mean I can't think it needs an overhaul. I don't hold to the adage, "If it's not broke, don't fix it" for technology. I think we should make changes and try new things just because we can (again, where technology is concerned). That's one major way progress is made. It's like going from horses and carriages to cars - horses worked well, carriages worked well, but that doesn't mean just because you liked them, you couldn't wish for a car. Just because X is really good doesn't mean we can't remake X and make it better. That's all I was saying. No multiple personalities here.
iTunes has its faults but it's really quite good for what it can do. I think Apple needs to completely rework it from the ground up but it's certainly not "crap." It is better in OS X than Windows though; it's frustrating in Windows at times but then again, so is Windows!
Yeah, I weighted it toward Apple stuff but there are a lot of other really professional software titles on the App Store. Where the iOS App Store tends to have a lot of $.99 titles, the Mac App store is simply a nice repository of OS X software at 'normal' prices (and in some cases there is software that is free outside the store but not within the store). The Mac App Store results in more visible competition between applications, which helps consumers by reducing prices; that can also help developers because they have a convenient way to sell their software to a lot of people; the competition also might spur some developers to become better because they have tougher competition. The best apps will rise to the top and the mediocre will get lost in the shuffle. In any case, it's a win for consumers.
There are many others - those are just some of the useful paid apps. Yes, there are many missing from the store but they'll start to show up over time. We're only a few months into the Mac App Store; it'll grow exponentially. Yes, many programs will be junk but that's the case anywhere.
This statement has to be amended a bit. In 2002 Switzerland officially joined the UN, which technically ends their neutrality. They still try to remain as neutral as possible in practice but they can no longer be considered neutral.
"They also don't sell merchandise in those states to consumers."
Yes, they do: online or over the phone or via fax. His statement was about "big chains of retailers" (Walmart, Target, Costco, JC Penney, etc) who all have online stores. If you live in a state where they do not have a box store, you don't pay sales tax when you order online (or over the phone/fax/mail/pigeon). Even most "local" retailers have an online presence. It's only the really small businesses that are not chains that are potentially at a disadvantage. However, they're probably already at a disadvantage due to economies of scale.
Why should we have a fair marketplace? Capitalism isn't fair. Is it fair that I have to purchase my groceries at a higher price than the grocery stores can? Further, those stores profit from me. How is that fair? They profit on basic necessities of life. Farmer's markets aren't even fair solution because the farmers still sell their wares at a profit.
Marketplaces never are fair. The most fair they can be is with monopolies because then everyone ostensibly has access to the same goods at the same rates. But then you could argue that it's not fair for the poor because they have to spend more of their money (as an overall percent of their incomes) on stuff than the wealthy do. Then we start "progressive" actions (taxes or whatever) that inordinately affect the wealthy more than the poor. All the sudden we have a situation that is not fair for the wealthy - they are "punished" or their wages are garnished at higher rates just because they committed the great sin of being wealthy.
My point with all of this is that arguing against Amazon based on what is or isn't fair is entirely subjective. I'd argue that not only is fairness not feasible, it is not desirable either. Yes, it would be nice if everything could be fair but again, fair is in the eye of the beholder and what is fair to one person isn't necessarily fair to someone else.
How does race not factor in behavioral profiling when in airports trying to catch Al Qaida-trained (or other terrorist groups) people? This is a serious question. How would you behaviorally profile someone (based on sound psychological techniques) if you were a profiler working in an airport trying to stop attacks on or with airplanes? Would you completely ignore race? Yes, I know this is a specific instance, but we're talking about the TSA and post-9/11 airports. That was the original example. I'm not talking about police behaviorally profiling potential drunk drivers or anything like that, I know there are many ways and circumstances to behaviorally profile, but in an airport setting where we are trying to prevent another attack like 9/11 (at least in magnitude or type), behavioral profiling takes on a specific flavor. That means ceteris paribus - all other things being equal - someone behaviorally profiling people in an airport will focus first on the woman who looks like they are from the Middle East rather than the young mother from Wisconsin. If you're trying to profile an eco terrorist (I don't like using that word but that's how it's used), you focus on specific demographic characteristics (probably white, 20-30s, middle class or affluent, maybe a background of juvenile delinquency, etc). If your initial profile is wrong, then your hypothesis is wrong and you can move on to someone else.
In any case, my argument was incomplete because half of it got lost in submission.
If you want an example of a psychologically-valid and effective way to behaviorally profile, here's one: "Although behavioral profiling has not received much empirical scrutiny and has become even more controversial since passage of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (2001; see section 215), the technique remains a tool of law enforcement. Profiling has also garnered the attention of forensic psychologists, whose knowledge of human behavior and methodological expertise lend themselves to collaboration with law enforcement (Kocsis, 2003; Winerman, 2004; Woodworth & Porter, 2002). Profiling involves the construction of a demographic and psychological template of an individual who has committed or might commit a crime, such as terrorism. For example, the political ideology of American terrorists has been linked to their demographic and tactical characteristics; right-wing terrorists tend to be relatively uneducated and underemployed white males, who reside in rural areas and are networked nationally (Smith & Morgan, 1994)." (Source: Stevens, M. J. (2005), What is terrorism and can psychology do anything to prevent it?. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23: 507–526. doi: 10.1002/bsl.652 )
That's just one example, but incorporating demographic (socioeconomic status, ethnicity, age, weight, etc) information is necessary. You certainly don't have to agree, I'm just putting forth what I've learned by reading the research literature on behavioral profiling as well as in my numerous behavior classes getting a BS, MS, and PhD in psychology. Sorry for the appeal to authority, I know it's a weak logical argument and kind of lame but I'm not just making this stuff up.
Unfortunately, most of the middle section of my post (the GP one to this current post) disappeared in posting, which is unfortunate because it contained the bulk of my point. I wasn't trying to contradict the parent (AC), I was clarifying my original post. I was merely pointing out that I was not confusing behavioral and racial profiling - the AC GP put words in my mouth and misinterpreted what I had originally written, I was pointing out that race has to factor into behavioral profiling in some instances. I've read published articles on behavioral profiling and they all make that point.
I know all about about type I errors (false positives). It's better to have false positives than type II errors when dealing with terrorism. I know people will disagree but I'd rather temporarily detain some innocent people rather than let someone get through who then does a lot of damage.
As far as useful solutions - I've already posted some elsewhere in this thread. The key is to stop spending all this money on backscatter machines and other things like that and rely more on having well-trained professional behavioral profilers (with psychological training) who watch and interact with people in airports. We need to make airport security smarter, not more high tech. We know behavioral profiling works, almost all the technology added after 9/11 in airports has not been shown to stop attacks. You have to stop attacks well before airports or train stations and then use profiling in airports as a last measure.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple is making huge inroads in scientific computing. My field is quickly becoming dominated by OS X (Linux is still huge, obviously, but many of the researchers in the U.S. and other wealthy nations have switched over to OS X). Apple will not kill off OS X. Yes, iOS might become the primary OS for many people but Apple won't abandon their large and growing OS X base.
No, that's the next version of the Wii - the Wii U2. It comes with a Bono and The Edge faceplate.
You can also upload your songs if they are not in the iTunes library. For $25 / year to store as much music as you want seems like a pretty good deal.
They reportedly paid the big 4 music labels $100 million upfront (likely with ongoing fees paid to them). In any case, you can't deny the clout Apple has in the music industry.
Ah, but my wit is multi-modally distributed. ;)
It's worse than that. If we start building more solar energy plants we'll use more of the energy from the sun, causing it to burn out faster. The one positive thing about that is it will counteract global warming because eventually the sun will cool down as we suck all the energy from it.
ESB and ROTJ were both done by different directors. George Lucas is immensely creative; he's a wonderful storyteller. He's got an eye for special effects too. What he's not good at is writing and directing films. He needs to be involved on a creative level and then let other people do the writing and directing (he can help write one of the screenplay drafts). Look at Willow, for example, or the Indiana Jones movies (at least the old ones). That's the involvement he needs in a project. That's the involvement he'd have in a live action Star Wars show, so it would probably be quite good.
I have the same view. I've been eying some nice Asus or Samsung laptops but I'm tired of dealing with Windows. I enjoy using OS X while I merely tolerate Windows. I'd rather put a little extra money in something that I enjoy using.
If it's just a hardware issue, then why does the same hardware work perfectly in Ubuntu? I can run it for days under heavy use and it will be rock solid. If I try the same thing under Windows, it crashes. All my drivers are up to date too. It's a hardware/driver/OS issue, not just a hardware issue. I'd just go with Ubuntu but I also need to be able to run Windows for games and a few other programs. If my computer is stable with Ubuntu but unstable with Windows on it, that's not a viable solution. Yes, I could buy another PC and run Windows but the only use I have for Windows is playing games. All of my other computer use requires either OS X or Linux. I prefer Macs.
I've been checking every day for that back to school sale. I'm finally cutting Microsoft off after 30 too many blue screens in Windows 7 (but Ubuntu manages to run just fine); yeah, I know, it's a driver issue (probably) but after many hours of working on the computer, it's not worth my time to figure out the issue. Apple will not give away iPads but they might give $200 discounts on them.
The "i..." started when Steve Jobs came back as the interim CEO in the late 90s (he was referred to as the iCEO). It wasn't long before the iMac came out and the "i" stuck.
Here's part of the press release: "CUPERTINO, Calif.--Sept. 16, 1997--At its first regularly scheduled meeting last week, Apple's new Board of Directors formalized the role of Steve Jobs by naming him interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company until a new CEO is named.
"At this meeting, the Board of Directors also met with its executive recruiter, John Thompson of Heidrick & Struggles, to review the status of its search for a CEO. The Board expects that a new CEO will be named before the end of the year." Source: http://www.apple.com/ca/press/1997/09/InterimCEO.html
Even if the filtering was/is not terribly effective, it can still be among the most sophisticated in the world. That's not as much a statement of quality as it is a statement of grouping. How many other countries censor like China or Iran do? There aren't a lot. That's why you can have "good" but not completely effective censors and still be among the most sophisticated. :)
I'd have to agree with the Debian/Ubuntu route if you want user friendliness. I've always found Debianesque systems much more manageable than other distros. If I have to provide most of the IT myself, I prefer Debian/Ubuntu. There are some science Debian distros as well (and repositories).
Scientific Linux would likely be faster overall for computationally heavy tasks but it really depends on what you are planning on doing. Debian wouldn't be slow, just not quite as fast as Scientific Linux; but again, that might not matter very much in the big picture.
It's called dissociative personality disorder, by the way. Anyway, just because I like iTunes doesn't mean I can't think it needs an overhaul. I don't hold to the adage, "If it's not broke, don't fix it" for technology. I think we should make changes and try new things just because we can (again, where technology is concerned). That's one major way progress is made. It's like going from horses and carriages to cars - horses worked well, carriages worked well, but that doesn't mean just because you liked them, you couldn't wish for a car. Just because X is really good doesn't mean we can't remake X and make it better. That's all I was saying. No multiple personalities here.
iTunes has its faults but it's really quite good for what it can do. I think Apple needs to completely rework it from the ground up but it's certainly not "crap." It is better in OS X than Windows though; it's frustrating in Windows at times but then again, so is Windows!
We do the same thing with MRI scans to reduce scan times, varying the extent of the transform to alternate between speed and quality.
Yeah, I weighted it toward Apple stuff but there are a lot of other really professional software titles on the App Store. Where the iOS App Store tends to have a lot of $.99 titles, the Mac App store is simply a nice repository of OS X software at 'normal' prices (and in some cases there is software that is free outside the store but not within the store). The Mac App Store results in more visible competition between applications, which helps consumers by reducing prices; that can also help developers because they have a convenient way to sell their software to a lot of people; the competition also might spur some developers to become better because they have tougher competition. The best apps will rise to the top and the mediocre will get lost in the shuffle. In any case, it's a win for consumers.
There are a lot of applications that are not in the App Store but I don't think it's fair to say that there are only fairly trivial apps in there.
iWork
iLife
Aperture
Bento
BBEdit
Xcode
Scrivener
OmniGraffle
Camtasia
Skitch
There are many others - those are just some of the useful paid apps. Yes, there are many missing from the store but they'll start to show up over time. We're only a few months into the Mac App Store; it'll grow exponentially. Yes, many programs will be junk but that's the case anywhere.
This statement has to be amended a bit. In 2002 Switzerland officially joined the UN, which technically ends their neutrality. They still try to remain as neutral as possible in practice but they can no longer be considered neutral.
For the record, Congress gave it that name - Pres. Bush never liked the name.
"They also don't sell merchandise in those states to consumers."
Yes, they do: online or over the phone or via fax. His statement was about "big chains of retailers" (Walmart, Target, Costco, JC Penney, etc) who all have online stores. If you live in a state where they do not have a box store, you don't pay sales tax when you order online (or over the phone/fax/mail/pigeon). Even most "local" retailers have an online presence. It's only the really small businesses that are not chains that are potentially at a disadvantage. However, they're probably already at a disadvantage due to economies of scale.
Why should we have a fair marketplace? Capitalism isn't fair. Is it fair that I have to purchase my groceries at a higher price than the grocery stores can? Further, those stores profit from me. How is that fair? They profit on basic necessities of life. Farmer's markets aren't even fair solution because the farmers still sell their wares at a profit.
Marketplaces never are fair. The most fair they can be is with monopolies because then everyone ostensibly has access to the same goods at the same rates. But then you could argue that it's not fair for the poor because they have to spend more of their money (as an overall percent of their incomes) on stuff than the wealthy do. Then we start "progressive" actions (taxes or whatever) that inordinately affect the wealthy more than the poor. All the sudden we have a situation that is not fair for the wealthy - they are "punished" or their wages are garnished at higher rates just because they committed the great sin of being wealthy.
My point with all of this is that arguing against Amazon based on what is or isn't fair is entirely subjective. I'd argue that not only is fairness not feasible, it is not desirable either. Yes, it would be nice if everything could be fair but again, fair is in the eye of the beholder and what is fair to one person isn't necessarily fair to someone else.
29.8%
;)
I kid, sort of.
How does race not factor in behavioral profiling when in airports trying to catch Al Qaida-trained (or other terrorist groups) people? This is a serious question. How would you behaviorally profile someone (based on sound psychological techniques) if you were a profiler working in an airport trying to stop attacks on or with airplanes? Would you completely ignore race? Yes, I know this is a specific instance, but we're talking about the TSA and post-9/11 airports. That was the original example. I'm not talking about police behaviorally profiling potential drunk drivers or anything like that, I know there are many ways and circumstances to behaviorally profile, but in an airport setting where we are trying to prevent another attack like 9/11 (at least in magnitude or type), behavioral profiling takes on a specific flavor. That means ceteris paribus - all other things being equal - someone behaviorally profiling people in an airport will focus first on the woman who looks like they are from the Middle East rather than the young mother from Wisconsin. If you're trying to profile an eco terrorist (I don't like using that word but that's how it's used), you focus on specific demographic characteristics (probably white, 20-30s, middle class or affluent, maybe a background of juvenile delinquency, etc). If your initial profile is wrong, then your hypothesis is wrong and you can move on to someone else.
In any case, my argument was incomplete because half of it got lost in submission.
If you want an example of a psychologically-valid and effective way to behaviorally profile, here's one: "Although behavioral profiling has not received much empirical scrutiny and has become even more controversial since passage of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (2001; see section 215), the technique remains a tool of law enforcement. Profiling has also garnered the attention of forensic psychologists, whose knowledge of human behavior and methodological expertise lend themselves to collaboration with law enforcement (Kocsis, 2003; Winerman, 2004; Woodworth & Porter, 2002). Profiling involves the construction of a demographic and psychological template of an individual who has committed or might commit a crime, such as terrorism. For example, the political ideology of American terrorists has been linked to their demographic and tactical characteristics; right-wing terrorists tend to be relatively uneducated and underemployed white males, who reside in rural areas and are networked nationally (Smith & Morgan, 1994)." (Source: Stevens, M. J. (2005), What is terrorism and can psychology do anything to prevent it?. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23: 507–526. doi: 10.1002/bsl.652 )
That's just one example, but incorporating demographic (socioeconomic status, ethnicity, age, weight, etc) information is necessary. You certainly don't have to agree, I'm just putting forth what I've learned by reading the research literature on behavioral profiling as well as in my numerous behavior classes getting a BS, MS, and PhD in psychology. Sorry for the appeal to authority, I know it's a weak logical argument and kind of lame but I'm not just making this stuff up.
Unfortunately, most of the middle section of my post (the GP one to this current post) disappeared in posting, which is unfortunate because it contained the bulk of my point. I wasn't trying to contradict the parent (AC), I was clarifying my original post. I was merely pointing out that I was not confusing behavioral and racial profiling - the AC GP put words in my mouth and misinterpreted what I had originally written, I was pointing out that race has to factor into behavioral profiling in some instances. I've read published articles on behavioral profiling and they all make that point.
I know all about about type I errors (false positives). It's better to have false positives than type II errors when dealing with terrorism. I know people will disagree but I'd rather temporarily detain some innocent people rather than let someone get through who then does a lot of damage.
As far as useful solutions - I've already posted some elsewhere in this thread. The key is to stop spending all this money on backscatter machines and other things like that and rely more on having well-trained professional behavioral profilers (with psychological training) who watch and interact with people in airports. We need to make airport security smarter, not more high tech. We know behavioral profiling works, almost all the technology added after 9/11 in airports has not been shown to stop attacks. You have to stop attacks well before airports or train stations and then use profiling in airports as a last measure.