For a site that ostensibly recognizes Science as valuable, Logic & Reason as important, and Technology as powerful tools,/. is often filled with a lot of ignorant, non-curious, offensive and illogical posters. The only exception is we generally like Technology, few Luddites here (of course they would have to be Luddites who owned a computer and knew how to use it, which is rather restricting).
Many many/. posts seem to be made as a result of emotional upset, not to further a reasoned argument. Much moderation is just the same way.
Moderation is thus just as suspect, and its only saving grace is that it should average out to a reasonable result over time.
Whatever the results, the moderation system is far superior to the garbage I see on most forums. Were I to judge Humanity based on forum posts and tweets, I would assume Humanity is too stupid to live.
Its tracking my license plate information. Who is to say I didn't lend my car to a friend? I have no way to prove it wasn't me, so I get tarred with whatever my friend did while s/he had the car.
Here in Victoria, BC, Canada, most companies seem to want a Web Developer/Programmer who also a Web Developer and Photoshop/Flash expert. They want LAMP experts who also know.NET and Java plus probably Oracle. They are offering positions on contract and with no benefits. Its no wonder why its taking them a while to fill the positions, but it also sucks when you are looking for work and they want the Moon for qualification, but offer Uranus for compensation.
Yes, but unfortunately sometimes companies like to slip in things with an update that they don't bother to mention. If you want the security added by the "security update" then you end up accepting the new version of DRM that's been slipped into surreptitiously as well. MS did this at one point I believe, but I have no doubt that they are not alone. If software manufacturers were under some legal obligation to tell the truth and act in their user's interests it might be different, but I often get the feeling that having bought their product, I am now a "marketing unit" and serve the double purpose of being analyzed, exploited and becoming the target of further marketing by their corporate friends.
By their nature - a focus on increasing profits at all costs - the corporation is inherently amoral. Oh, they may choose to act in a moral or responsible manner for sure, but there is nothing inherent in the concept of a corporation that actually encourages that attitude. If a company discovers its product is a health hazard, its in their best interest to cover it up, try to fix the problem as quietly and quickly as possible - and carry on, all the while hoping no one notices or sues them. Anything else will reduce sales, open them up to lawsuits and consequent penalties, and decrease profits. As I see it (and IANAL), the chief problem is that we allow corporations to act as individuals. If the presidents & officers of corporations were personally (and financiallly) liable for the actions of a corporation, then we might get less objectionable actions from companies and more responsibilities. OTOH who would want to be a corporate head? Currently a corporation has *more* rights than a private individual, and less liability in many ways (they can be fined etc, but don't go to jail). I don't support Communism, it hasn't worked, but that fact doesn't mean that its opposite, Capitalism, is inherently perfect either.
I am not talking religious belief there. I meant that if I didn't still think that democracy was a worthwhile process to participate in, then I wouldn't continue to participate in it. I am also concerned that the current system as present in Canada (and likely in the US) is too compromised by the power of corporations to influence elections, and that the candidates who do get elected have to make some compromises to their ideals, and end up helping out the companies that supported them as a means of payback. Thats a bit pedantic as an explanation but its what I meant when using "believe".
Politicians get into power by getting corporate sponsorship, once they are there they quite naturally pay back the favour. Really, the Politicians are not much more than Corporate Representatives in Government. There is the minor formality of convincing the public to vote for the company candidate but you just throw money at that and hire good advertising companies.
The US has the best politicians the corporations can buy.
Sadly up here in Canada, its no different as far as I can see. I still believe in democracy, but I am no longer sure we still have it:(
I first saw Episode 4 in the local theatre when it came out. I was about 18 at the time. I loved it, up until then SF had had relatively few good films, and special effects were generally lacking in quality. I liked the second film a lot as well. The third film had the ewoks in it, and it was the beginning of the downfall. George lost his way there.
The 3 prequel films were horrid abortions. The only thing I could think when I watched them was that Lucas probably secured the manufacturing for the toys first, then built a film around it, ignoring all those old tropes like good characterisation, plot, and above all hiring actors that can, you know, actually act. The kid who played Anakin was positively painful to watch, and only a complete fucking idiot would ever have hired him for a part as a wall ornament, let alone a key role. I have to assume George thought it would help with merchandising to have him as Anakin. The prequels are, and will always remain to me, attempts to make money by throwing together action sequences intended to sell toys and other merchandise, not serious attempts to make a movie.
I think if they try to make a "dark" Star Wars spinoff (in otherwords, a "Battlestar-Galactica-was-successful-so-maybe-copying-it-will-make-us-more-bucks" approach), the only way it will be successful is if George Lucas has nothing to do with it beyond giving permission to make it. He just doesn't get what attracts people to the original movies at all. If he is making it, it will suck, period.
Now of course, the above hollywood unoriginal approach to copying a previous success because they don't know what made it good, hasn't worked for Stargate:Universe as far as I can tell. The show is painfully bad - and NONE of the characters are likeable. As a result, I - as a long time Stargate fan - could care less if any of the whiney self-centred SG:U assholes dies. I stopped watching after 4 shows that were predictable and unenjoyable.
I doubt a gritty Star Wars will work well either, because it takes a special touch to make it work, and I doubt Lucas Arts and Lucas himself, has that touch.
Can you trust the NSA to not simply forward all the commercially viable information to a corporation, if it serves their interests? They have apparently used sigint to aid US corporations in the past, whats to stop them now. I feel no guarantee that the NSA is going to be any more careful about using personal information than the Chinese will be. I am opposed to both of them knowing my personal details. Really the only defense I have is the fact that I am undoubtedly of little interest to either.
I gotta agree ZS was great. I have tried the Eclipse Framework version and hate it. I still have my ZS installed but had to switch to Netbeans, as a result of upgrading to Leopard on my iMac (After the upgrade, I no longer see highlighted text and thats a pain when coding. The moment I select it, its white on white). Until i figure a way to fix that, I am using Netbeans, which is okay but not as nice overall. ZendStudio really was worth the money I paid for it, too bad they don't update it.
I think piracy is unavoidable in a non-subscription based model like most standalone games. The target audience (teenagers) sees themselves as poor, or actually is poor, and is thus unwilling to pay for something they can get for free. Others undoubtedly resent the fact they are being asked to actually pay for a game, and so are willing to crack them. I would like to see the demographics on who *does* pay for games and see if I am write, or if people of all ages are cheap bastards:P
Now the MMO world has it much better off, since you need a subscription to actually play the game at all. Of course that undoubtedly leads to a lot of problems with stolen CC numbers and the like, so perhaps you are no further ahead. By requiring a CC number to even register, they of course limit their potential sales massively as well.
Sadly I think this is going to lead to games which are free to play, but contain targeted in-game advertising down the road. I don't want to see how badly that warps the game designs we see as a result.
He's wrong because he shouldn't have gone off into the woods to be alone in the first place. Doesn't he see whats going on? She's upset and needed him to be near. I mean, its not like there wasn't obvious evidence: she left her shoes untied!
Agreed completely. What most people call "Grammar" is in fact the rules for manipulating English that they were taught in school to be correct. Those in turn are based on what is considered acceptable English by the Education system in their area. Most of those rules were in turn shoe-horned onto English because they originated with Latin. We used to be taught about the various cases for noun declension in English, but the truth is that most of those cases have entirely disappeared from the language, and only vestiges remain (and even those are disappearing).
Pronunciation is similarly defined. Its entirely arbitrary and based on social standards more than actual definable truths. What is acceptable usage in England will differ considerably from Canadian or US pronunciation, and of course vocabulary. All of them represent standards, but no one is truly correct. Its a matter of convention which one you apply.
Thus in England, correct pronunciation is based on comparison to "Received Pronunciation" (basically BBC English) I believe. Rules for grammatical formations are also so defined. This is what is taught in the Education system as being correct. Different standards are applicable here in Canada, and down in the USA of course.
As many people have pointed out above, African Americans have created their own dialect (more likely multiple dialects) of English language usage that has different rules, and deviates from Standard English as defined in the USA. Nothing makes Standard English inherently superior to African American variants though. Both can be used to communicate effectively, its just that the Standard version is, well, a Standard.
Basically, if you speak a language natively, you really can't speak it incorrectly. You may or may not speak according to the excepted Standard, but you can't really be incorrect either.
As for the use of punctuation such as commas in written language, that's purely a convention as defined by standard usage, not some absolute truth.
All that said, I agree completely that when dealing with academic papers, the authors need to be able to adequately express themselves in the accepted Standard English, including grammatical constructions and pronunciation (when you consider Oral presentations etc).
Well if I never saw flash again, I wouldn't miss it. The most common place I see it? In advertisements where I am sure its bypassing any privacy settings I might have. Does it add to a webpage - not to me it doesn't. The few games I couldn't play because I lacked flash, would be the exact same games I never play anyways.
I agree on all counts - and have said the same elsewhere - but you summarize my opinion very well. We are not the audience. My wife will love one of these - and not because she is a shallow computer user (she already has a netbook and a desktop and is a very good and knowledgeable computer user) but because it perfect fits a niche of computer using that she would want to find a device for: browsing the web with an easily portable device with good battery life, sending and receiving email, and the ability to write. The biggest limitation I can see is the on screen keyboard which may not prove to be all that good for typing, but then you can apparently add an external keyboard so that may not matter much.
I build web-based applications, and believe me I can see the attractiveness of something like this in certain environments. Think of the PADD devices they carry around in Star Trek. This is that device more or less. I would no more want to be able to hack that device than I would want to be able to hack my TV Remote - I just want it to work.
It isn't a locked down general-purpose computing device just because you say it is.
Its a limited tool, intended for people who don't need a computer, but want to be able to browse the web and do certain other functions that are similar in some regards. In reality I think its better to compare this thing to the iPod Touch, more than any other device. It owes more to that heritage than it does to laptop/netbook computers.
It doesn't use the same OS as all of Apples other products, and I imagine the OS it is using owes more to the iPhone/iPod Touch than any other source. Its an Apples/Oranges (pun intended) comparison to treat this thing like its some kind of netbook and then criticize it as a result of it not matching your expectations for its functionality. If you want a computer from Apple that meets those expectations go buy a Macbook Air,Macbook or Macbook Pro. All of them are excellent computers.
Nor is the iPad arbitrarily locked down. Its locked down because the manufacturer chose to do so, no doubt for solid business reasons - including their ability to ensure the products stability, security etc. You can make apps for it, the SDK came out at the same time as the product. Much as you might like to have manufacturers make the product you want, they are under no obligation to do so. If you don't like it, don't buy one, but there is no point in whining about it because it doesn't meet some personal standard you insist is the only valid one.
While I have no personal need for one, I think this thing is going to prove wildly popular down the road. I think the bulk of/. readers are missing the objectivity to see just how appealing this thing will prove to be to the general public.
Actually I think its a brilliant device. It fills a nice quite nicely and I think it will do amazingly well. I don't think the majority of/. readers are really able to objectively think about what will appeal to the bulk of the users out there. * This thing works like an iPhone, an extremely popular device that obviously has a proven business model and works reliably for the majority of its users. Its biggest negative in most people's eyes was that it was tied to AT&T directly, this is now gone from the picture. * Its not a computer per se, its a web-browsing tablet. Don't think of it as a computer, its not aimed at that audience - its aimed at all the people out there who buy netbooks so they can check facebook/myspace/email etc and browse the web, or at those people who are using their phones to do the same thing and will be relieved to have a bigger screen and interface. Its most likely less functional that most netbooks in that regards - but I think the majority of people using netbooks don't need much of the functionality they get from them - and don't get the simplicity and reliability they would prefer if given the chance. * The iPad (and I agree its an awful name) is perfect for a lot of potential users - its just that the target audience is not/. readers for the most part. This crowd likes to have total control, to tear things apart and understand how the work so they can change them or improve them. This is more like the functionality of a Toaster for the web-browsing crowd. * I think its well placed in apples product lineup: iPhone, iPad, then Macbook, MacbookPro (in one branch) or iMac, iMac Pro (on the other, desktop, branch). * To use the preferred car analogy this thing is more like a Smart Car. Its small, flashy, somewhat cute and probably works fine. If you want a real sports car you buy something high end with more power, thats more configurable but also more expensive.
I am using my iMac with a logitech wireless mouse, but it came with a 2 button mouse (well ok, appearance-wise there were no buttons, but you could right or left click on it without any problem).
This is such a stupid and tired meme. Apple computers haven't been stuck with a 1 button mouse in a long time. Its like me laughing at IBMs because of their 640k memory limit or something. Beyond stupid.
Digging it up as a lame joke every once in a while just makes you look like an ignorant/jealous idiot.
That lots of the people who would make up your cyber militia would be the type who are inherently anti-authoritarian and distrustful of organizations of any sort - and thus would be self-excluded.
If prison should be about rehabilitation, whats wrong with teaching people to cooperate, teaching them about right and wrong, teaching them that if they work at it, they can improve their lives etc? All of those things are something they *might* get from a good D&D campaign as a byproduct of having fun. Now granted, their campaigns may differ somewhat given they are being run by people with questionable morales (they ended up in prison already), perhaps lower intelligence (they ended up in prison already), and possibly coming from disadvantaged circumstances (something drove them to end up in prison already) etc. I realize that I am making a lot of assumptions that perhaps are not at all fair mind you. It is entirely possible to end up in prison for a lot of reasons - and in the US you have turned prisons into a business and they are booming I am told - so not everyone fits the mold. I think the whole concept of prison is flawed somewhat. We don't try to rehabilitate people, we punish them even after they have gotten out (because they are ex-cons), and the only thing we succeed in doing is putting them out of society for X years (oh and generate a nice profit for the prison corp of course). I dunno what the right solution is, but I don't think we have it yet.
1. Spammer, using various means, suborns 20000 computers. 2. Spammer using the new botnet, instructs it to send out 1m emails, using the email configuration for that computer, and the email address of the computer's owner. 3. Each email appears to be a legitimate email from the actual owner of the computer. Each therefore has your serial number and can be verified. 4. Each email neatly bypasses your confirmation system, and if you try to track down the spammer you get Joe Idiot who has had their computer infiltrated.
There is no solution to spamming. Its an arms race as people have said. The reason spamming works and continues to plague us is because there are so many complete fucking idiots out there who respond to it and buy stuff from the spammer. As long as people continue to be stupid and ignorant (and good luck fixing that, we seem to be getting stupider year by year, and NA culture practically worships ignorance), there will be idiots that make spamming profitable. We don't need the ACTA BS thats being bribed into being to protect the outdated business models of the RIAA/MAFIAA, what we need is an agreement about spam. If spamming carried heavily penalties (say the Death Penalty or life in prison), and the majority of countries in the world permitted extradition for spamming, we might see a solution.
Personally speaking. I think email has had its day. It was a fantastic tool but the asshats of the world have ruined it. We need to just eliminate email and find some better solution from scratch. One that requires a very secure means of authentication at both ends (and yes this means there is no true privacy with it).
Hopefully someone steps up to the plate with a good suggestion. I can end with a vehicle analogy: If 95% of the people who got on a bus didn't pay for it, and the remaining 5% were required to pay for the cheaters, how long do you think that people would continue to use the transit system?
How does this differ from cops covering up incidents involving their fellow officers, or the military "solving its own problems"? I would say its endemic to any closely knit organization that it chooses to defend itself by closing ranks and dealing with things internally, whatever the offense. I am not justifying it, just saying that I think its unfair to blame the Catholic church for this without condemning it elsewhere as well.
Slashdot Mirror
For a site that ostensibly recognizes Science as valuable, Logic & Reason as important, and Technology as powerful tools, /. is often filled with a lot of ignorant, non-curious, offensive and illogical posters. The only exception is we generally like Technology, few Luddites here (of course they would have to be Luddites who owned a computer and knew how to use it, which is rather restricting).
Many many /. posts seem to be made as a result of emotional upset, not to further a reasoned argument. Much moderation is just the same way.
Moderation is thus just as suspect, and its only saving grace is that it should average out to a reasonable result over time.
Whatever the results, the moderation system is far superior to the garbage I see on most forums. Were I to judge Humanity based on forum posts and tweets, I would assume Humanity is too stupid to live.
Its tracking my license plate information. Who is to say I didn't lend my car to a friend? I have no way to prove it wasn't me, so I get tarred with whatever my friend did while s/he had the car.
Here in Victoria, BC, Canada, most companies seem to want a Web Developer/Programmer who also a Web Developer and Photoshop/Flash expert. They want LAMP experts who also know .NET and Java plus probably Oracle. They are offering positions on contract and with no benefits. Its no wonder why its taking them a while to fill the positions, but it also sucks when you are looking for work and they want the Moon for qualification, but offer Uranus for compensation.
Yes, but unfortunately sometimes companies like to slip in things with an update that they don't bother to mention. If you want the security added by the "security update" then you end up accepting the new version of DRM that's been slipped into surreptitiously as well. MS did this at one point I believe, but I have no doubt that they are not alone.
If software manufacturers were under some legal obligation to tell the truth and act in their user's interests it might be different, but I often get the feeling that having bought their product, I am now a "marketing unit" and serve the double purpose of being analyzed, exploited and becoming the target of further marketing by their corporate friends.
By their nature - a focus on increasing profits at all costs - the corporation is inherently amoral. Oh, they may choose to act in a moral or responsible manner for sure, but there is nothing inherent in the concept of a corporation that actually encourages that attitude.
If a company discovers its product is a health hazard, its in their best interest to cover it up, try to fix the problem as quietly and quickly as possible - and carry on, all the while hoping no one notices or sues them. Anything else will reduce sales, open them up to lawsuits and consequent penalties, and decrease profits.
As I see it (and IANAL), the chief problem is that we allow corporations to act as individuals. If the presidents & officers of corporations were personally (and financiallly) liable for the actions of a corporation, then we might get less objectionable actions from companies and more responsibilities. OTOH who would want to be a corporate head?
Currently a corporation has *more* rights than a private individual, and less liability in many ways (they can be fined etc, but don't go to jail).
I don't support Communism, it hasn't worked, but that fact doesn't mean that its opposite, Capitalism, is inherently perfect either.
I am not talking religious belief there. I meant that if I didn't still think that democracy was a worthwhile process to participate in, then I wouldn't continue to participate in it. I am also concerned that the current system as present in Canada (and likely in the US) is too compromised by the power of corporations to influence elections, and that the candidates who do get elected have to make some compromises to their ideals, and end up helping out the companies that supported them as a means of payback. Thats a bit pedantic as an explanation but its what I meant when using "believe".
Politicians get into power by getting corporate sponsorship, once they are there they quite naturally pay back the favour. Really, the Politicians are not much more than Corporate Representatives in Government. There is the minor formality of convincing the public to vote for the company candidate but you just throw money at that and hire good advertising companies.
The US has the best politicians the corporations can buy.
Sadly up here in Canada, its no different as far as I can see. I still believe in democracy, but I am no longer sure we still have it :(
I first saw Episode 4 in the local theatre when it came out. I was about 18 at the time. I loved it, up until then SF had had relatively few good films, and special effects were generally lacking in quality.
I liked the second film a lot as well. The third film had the ewoks in it, and it was the beginning of the downfall. George lost his way there.
The 3 prequel films were horrid abortions. The only thing I could think when I watched them was that Lucas probably secured the manufacturing for the toys first, then built a film around it, ignoring all those old tropes like good characterisation, plot, and above all hiring actors that can, you know, actually act. The kid who played Anakin was positively painful to watch, and only a complete fucking idiot would ever have hired him for a part as a wall ornament, let alone a key role. I have to assume George thought it would help with merchandising to have him as Anakin. The prequels are, and will always remain to me, attempts to make money by throwing together action sequences intended to sell toys and other merchandise, not serious attempts to make a movie.
I think if they try to make a "dark" Star Wars spinoff (in otherwords, a "Battlestar-Galactica-was-successful-so-maybe-copying-it-will-make-us-more-bucks" approach), the only way it will be successful is if George Lucas has nothing to do with it beyond giving permission to make it. He just doesn't get what attracts people to the original movies at all. If he is making it, it will suck, period.
Now of course, the above hollywood unoriginal approach to copying a previous success because they don't know what made it good, hasn't worked for Stargate:Universe as far as I can tell. The show is painfully bad - and NONE of the characters are likeable. As a result, I - as a long time Stargate fan - could care less if any of the whiney self-centred SG:U assholes dies. I stopped watching after 4 shows that were predictable and unenjoyable.
I doubt a gritty Star Wars will work well either, because it takes a special touch to make it work, and I doubt Lucas Arts and Lucas himself, has that touch.
And they probably started working on it a decade or two ago, and have a working version now :P
Can you trust the NSA to not simply forward all the commercially viable information to a corporation, if it serves their interests?
They have apparently used sigint to aid US corporations in the past, whats to stop them now.
I feel no guarantee that the NSA is going to be any more careful about using personal information than the Chinese will be. I am opposed to both of them knowing my personal details. Really the only defense I have is the fact that I am undoubtedly of little interest to either.
I gotta agree ZS was great. I have tried the Eclipse Framework version and hate it. I still have my ZS installed but had to switch to Netbeans, as a result of upgrading to Leopard on my iMac (After the upgrade, I no longer see highlighted text and thats a pain when coding. The moment I select it, its white on white). Until i figure a way to fix that, I am using Netbeans, which is okay but not as nice overall. ZendStudio really was worth the money I paid for it, too bad they don't update it.
I think piracy is unavoidable in a non-subscription based model like most standalone games. The target audience (teenagers) sees themselves as poor, or actually is poor, and is thus unwilling to pay for something they can get for free. Others undoubtedly resent the fact they are being asked to actually pay for a game, and so are willing to crack them. :P
I would like to see the demographics on who *does* pay for games and see if I am write, or if people of all ages are cheap bastards
Now the MMO world has it much better off, since you need a subscription to actually play the game at all. Of course that undoubtedly leads to a lot of problems with stolen CC numbers and the like, so perhaps you are no further ahead. By requiring a CC number to even register, they of course limit their potential sales massively as well.
Sadly I think this is going to lead to games which are free to play, but contain targeted in-game advertising down the road. I don't want to see how badly that warps the game designs we see as a result.
He's wrong because he shouldn't have gone off into the woods to be alone in the first place. Doesn't he see whats going on? She's upset and needed him to be near. I mean, its not like there wasn't obvious evidence: she left her shoes untied!
Agreed completely. What most people call "Grammar" is in fact the rules for manipulating English that they were taught in school to be correct. Those in turn are based on what is considered acceptable English by the Education system in their area. Most of those rules were in turn shoe-horned onto English because they originated with Latin. We used to be taught about the various cases for noun declension in English, but the truth is that most of those cases have entirely disappeared from the language, and only vestiges remain (and even those are disappearing).
Pronunciation is similarly defined. Its entirely arbitrary and based on social standards more than actual definable truths. What is acceptable usage in England will differ considerably from Canadian or US pronunciation, and of course vocabulary. All of them represent standards, but no one is truly correct. Its a matter of convention which one you apply.
Thus in England, correct pronunciation is based on comparison to "Received Pronunciation" (basically BBC English) I believe. Rules for grammatical formations are also so defined. This is what is taught in the Education system as being correct. Different standards are applicable here in Canada, and down in the USA of course.
As many people have pointed out above, African Americans have created their own dialect (more likely multiple dialects) of English language usage that has different rules, and deviates from Standard English as defined in the USA. Nothing makes Standard English inherently superior to African American variants though. Both can be used to communicate effectively, its just that the Standard version is, well, a Standard.
Basically, if you speak a language natively, you really can't speak it incorrectly. You may or may not speak according to the excepted Standard, but you can't really be incorrect either.
As for the use of punctuation such as commas in written language, that's purely a convention as defined by standard usage, not some absolute truth.
All that said, I agree completely that when dealing with academic papers, the authors need to be able to adequately express themselves in the accepted Standard English, including grammatical constructions and pronunciation (when you consider Oral presentations etc).
Well if I never saw flash again, I wouldn't miss it. The most common place I see it? In advertisements where I am sure its bypassing any privacy settings I might have. Does it add to a webpage - not to me it doesn't.
The few games I couldn't play because I lacked flash, would be the exact same games I never play anyways.
I agree on all counts - and have said the same elsewhere - but you summarize my opinion very well. We are not the audience. My wife will love one of these - and not because she is a shallow computer user (she already has a netbook and a desktop and is a very good and knowledgeable computer user) but because it perfect fits a niche of computer using that she would want to find a device for: browsing the web with an easily portable device with good battery life, sending and receiving email, and the ability to write.
The biggest limitation I can see is the on screen keyboard which may not prove to be all that good for typing, but then you can apparently add an external keyboard so that may not matter much.
I build web-based applications, and believe me I can see the attractiveness of something like this in certain environments. Think of the PADD devices they carry around in Star Trek. This is that device more or less. I would no more want to be able to hack that device than I would want to be able to hack my TV Remote - I just want it to work.
It isn't a locked down general-purpose computing device just because you say it is.
Its a limited tool, intended for people who don't need a computer, but want to be able to browse the web and do certain other functions that are similar in some regards. In reality I think its better to compare this thing to the iPod Touch, more than any other device. It owes more to that heritage than it does to laptop/netbook computers.
It doesn't use the same OS as all of Apples other products, and I imagine the OS it is using owes more to the iPhone/iPod Touch than any other source. Its an Apples/Oranges (pun intended) comparison to treat this thing like its some kind of netbook and then criticize it as a result of it not matching your expectations for its functionality. If you want a computer from Apple that meets those expectations go buy a Macbook Air,Macbook or Macbook Pro. All of them are excellent computers.
Nor is the iPad arbitrarily locked down. Its locked down because the manufacturer chose to do so, no doubt for solid business reasons - including their ability to ensure the products stability, security etc. You can make apps for it, the SDK came out at the same time as the product. Much as you might like to have manufacturers make the product you want, they are under no obligation to do so. If you don't like it, don't buy one, but there is no point in whining about it because it doesn't meet some personal standard you insist is the only valid one.
While I have no personal need for one, I think this thing is going to prove wildly popular down the road. I think the bulk of /. readers are missing the objectivity to see just how appealing this thing will prove to be to the general public.
Actually I think its a brilliant device. It fills a nice quite nicely and I think it will do amazingly well. /. readers are really able to objectively think about what will appeal to the bulk of the users out there. /. readers for the most part. This crowd likes to have total control, to tear things apart and understand how the work so they can change them or improve them. This is more like the functionality of a Toaster for the web-browsing crowd.
I don't think the majority of
* This thing works like an iPhone, an extremely popular device that obviously has a proven business model and works reliably for the majority of its users. Its biggest negative in most people's eyes was that it was tied to AT&T directly, this is now gone from the picture.
* Its not a computer per se, its a web-browsing tablet. Don't think of it as a computer, its not aimed at that audience - its aimed at all the people out there who buy netbooks so they can check facebook/myspace/email etc and browse the web, or at those people who are using their phones to do the same thing and will be relieved to have a bigger screen and interface. Its most likely less functional that most netbooks in that regards - but I think the majority of people using netbooks don't need much of the functionality they get from them - and don't get the simplicity and reliability they would prefer if given the chance.
* The iPad (and I agree its an awful name) is perfect for a lot of potential users - its just that the target audience is not
* I think its well placed in apples product lineup: iPhone, iPad, then Macbook, MacbookPro (in one branch) or iMac, iMac Pro (on the other, desktop, branch).
* To use the preferred car analogy this thing is more like a Smart Car. Its small, flashy, somewhat cute and probably works fine. If you want a real sports car you buy something high end
with more power, thats more configurable but also more expensive.
I am using my iMac with a logitech wireless mouse, but it came with a 2 button mouse (well ok, appearance-wise there were no buttons, but you could right or left click on it without any problem).
This is such a stupid and tired meme. Apple computers haven't been stuck with a 1 button mouse in a long time. Its like me laughing at IBMs because of their 640k memory limit or something. Beyond stupid.
Digging it up as a lame joke every once in a while just makes you look like an ignorant/jealous idiot.
That lots of the people who would make up your cyber militia would be the type who are inherently anti-authoritarian and distrustful of organizations of any sort - and thus would be self-excluded.
If prison should be about rehabilitation, whats wrong with teaching people to cooperate, teaching them about right and wrong, teaching them that if they work at it, they can improve their lives etc? All of those things are something they *might* get from a good D&D campaign as a byproduct of having fun.
Now granted, their campaigns may differ somewhat given they are being run by people with questionable morales (they ended up in prison already), perhaps lower intelligence (they ended up in prison already), and possibly coming from disadvantaged circumstances (something drove them to end up in prison already) etc. I realize that I am making a lot of assumptions that perhaps are not at all fair mind you. It is entirely possible to end up in prison for a lot of reasons - and in the US you have turned prisons into a business and they are booming I am told - so not everyone fits the mold.
I think the whole concept of prison is flawed somewhat. We don't try to rehabilitate people, we punish them even after they have gotten out (because they are ex-cons), and the only thing we succeed in doing is putting them out of society for X years (oh and generate a nice profit for the prison corp of course).
I dunno what the right solution is, but I don't think we have it yet.
1. Spammer, using various means, suborns 20000 computers.
2. Spammer using the new botnet, instructs it to send out 1m emails, using the email configuration for that computer, and the email address of the computer's owner.
3. Each email appears to be a legitimate email from the actual owner of the computer. Each therefore has your serial number and can be verified.
4. Each email neatly bypasses your confirmation system, and if you try to track down the spammer you get Joe Idiot who has had their computer infiltrated.
There is no solution to spamming. Its an arms race as people have said. The reason spamming works and continues to plague us is because there are so many complete fucking idiots out there who respond to it and buy stuff from the spammer. As long as people continue to be stupid and ignorant (and good luck fixing that, we seem to be getting stupider year by year, and NA culture practically worships ignorance), there will be idiots that make spamming profitable.
We don't need the ACTA BS thats being bribed into being to protect the outdated business models of the RIAA/MAFIAA, what we need is an agreement about spam. If spamming carried heavily penalties (say the Death Penalty or life in prison), and the majority of countries in the world permitted extradition for spamming, we might see a solution.
Personally speaking. I think email has had its day. It was a fantastic tool but the asshats of the world have ruined it. We need to just eliminate email and find some better solution from scratch. One that requires a very secure means of authentication at both ends (and yes this means there is no true privacy with it).
Hopefully someone steps up to the plate with a good suggestion. I can end with a vehicle analogy: If 95% of the people who got on a bus didn't pay for it, and the remaining 5% were required to pay for the cheaters, how long do you think that people would continue to use the transit system?
They need to have money to pay for the hooker in the bar.
please, that quote is golden, I have read it before but it sure bears repeating
How does this differ from cops covering up incidents involving their fellow officers, or the military "solving its own problems"? I would say its endemic to any closely knit organization that it chooses to defend itself by closing ranks and dealing with things internally, whatever the offense.
I am not justifying it, just saying that I think its unfair to blame the Catholic church for this without condemning it elsewhere as well.