The ICC does not have the means to enforce there judgment.
Neither does any other court. It's called separation of powers and we as a civilization are fairly proud of it.
Laws, both international and domestic, are meaningless without the ability to apply force when needed to enforce the law.
Which is why the ICC is accompanied by an international treaty that countries sign - almost all non-tyranny countries on the planet have signed up, I think the US is the only democracy that hasn't. Enforcement is a part of the treaty.
I visited 14 countries over the past 3 years and the only animosity I encountered was from a drunk in an English pub.
Very few europeans are openly anti-american. However, the unrestricted love and admiration that once existed has quite dropped. Not to the point that many would actually be unfriendly to any particular american - most of us realize that what we dislike is the whole, not the parts. But american international politics, for example, has very few fans.
I'm sorry, but are you just dense or is this a troll?
The polish is the functionality. A voice-recognition that you constantly have to correct is useless, even if "the functionality is there". A personal assistant that isn't properly integrated with your personal data is useless. Voice commands that provide too small a subset of functionality won't get used.
Need an example? Here, I even have an anti-Apple one: The voice recognition in every Mac since I don't know when. Played with it a little, found it useless. If I were disabled, it would certainly be very welcome. For a regular person, keyboard and mouse are always faster and more precise.
As you can see easily, it integrated with a lot of websites, but little on the phone itself. But that's exactly what you want in a PA - make calls, set reminders (real ones, not the "send me an email" kind of the original Siri app), interface with contacts, calendar and all the other data you already have on there.
Of course the ICC prosecutes crime that some country doesn't. That's the whole point. It was created so dictators couldn't go about their merry genocidal ways by making their actions legal in the country they ruled. The "feature" of the judicial system you laud is exactly what allows these people to get away with it.
Oh, and do I need to point out that the whole idea is american? The Statute of Rome is a direct consequence of the Nuremberg trials, which are considered questionable by some legal scholars exactly because what the Nazis did was legal in Germany at that time.
So, your choice: Either you can prosecute Nazis via some kind of international law, or you can totally respect national laws and that means accepting that what people like them do is legal in their country.
Your only other option is hypocrisy - not accepting the rules you force on others when they inconvenience yourself. And that's the bully mentality.
Thankfully this trend is creating an bipartisan political support for the US to scale back it's international footprint and finally let others deal with their own problems for a change.
Frankly, most of the rest of the world wants nothing more. The whole Al Qaida thing? The original intent of Osama bin Laden was to make the US leave the holy sites of Islam. Anti-American sentiments in Europe? All caused by your tendency to meddle in things that aren't yours. Why do you think Europeans would dislike the US? Your comedy is bad, but not that bad, and we kind of like Coke and computers.
It was just to demonstrate how fast someone could come up with a similar project.
It's easy to do when the codebase is available. There are both voice recognition libraries for Android, and early code for what eventually became Siri.
But enjoy paying an extra $800 for a phone you don't need.
Smartass. First, it's not $800, it's $200 to $400 depending on the model you buy. Second, I didn't. Third, when I did (iPhone 4), it was for a device that I needed.
So, basically, the word "enjoy" was the only word in that sentence with at least some truth value.
Still, comparing screenshots of that 7290 and the first iPhone, they don't look all that different (from a purely visual perspective). Clock, battery and signal indicator at the top, grid of icons below.
You look at basic technological data points.
Almost nobody who is not a geek does that. People look at design, beauty, visual feedback. And that's where Apple shines. There's a couple great articles on the web picking apart things like the various transitions and animations. When Apple designs a swipe, it doesn't just move the screen contents left or right, they actually animate different elements of the screen differently. The end result is more pleasing and has better user feedback, even though you barely notice the differences consciously.
it is not a matter of Apple having developed anything original at all.
No, but it's a matter of Apple polishing it and turning a voice-recognition prototype into a personal assistant. The true strength of Apple has never been revolutionary innovation. It has always been turning innovation into great products. The first Apple computers didn't do anything that was not available elsewhere - but "elsewhere" meant either a hefty bill, several times that of the Apple machine, or it meant DIY.
Same for their recent successes. The iPod didn't invent the MP3 player, but it took the market by storm because it took the technology available and turned it into something lots of people wanted.
Same with the iPhone.
Same with Siri now. Yes, I consider that seperate from the iPhone. I'm sure that once it has served its purpose as a driver for iPhone 4S sales, it will find its way into other Apple products. I'd love to have Siri on my iMac.
The polish and the fact that the Apple stuff is finished when it hits the street is what makes a good part of it's appeal. Don't confuse "finished" with "perfect", it isn't. I have a couple remarks on what could/should be improved. But I've not gotten the impression of getting a half-finished DIY product as with Linux or Android (don't get me wrong, for some things, that's exactly what I want. But not for my phone).
8 hours can give you a prototype. It'll take at least a couple weeks before you can consider it "done".
Indeed voice commands have been in many phones for a while,
Including older iPhones - but here's the problem: They barely work. I use it very occasionally for simple things, like getting the time in winter when the phone is somewhere in an inside pocket.
From all I've seen, Siri works. That right there is the entire secret. It doesn't have 25613 features, but it works.
What's worse is Apple probably managed to get a patent or two on Siri.
They bought it. If there were any patents, they certainly now own them, but it's not Apple's fault or decision. Siri was almost complete when it got bought up.
It is so obvious that a bunch of coders at a hackathon could put something similar together in a few hours and have a demo of the same thing. Oh... wait... they've done exactly that, it's called Iris Alpha from a firm called, and it took eight hours.
Point is, while Apple's idea is clever, the polish and packaging good and the marketing cleverest, but it is absolutely not start of the art artificial intelligence,
Agreed. It is, however, the state of the art of the personal assistant. It is precisely the polish, integration and Steve's obsession with perfection that makes it a success. I'm sure there's at least a hundred prototype projects around that can do more, have more advanced AI, etc. etc. etc. - but none of them are in a state where you could put them out into a mass market.
And that's why Apple is making more money than they know what to do with, and the Iris Alpha coders are playing "look ma" in the Android market place.
Personal disclaimer: Don't get this wrong as a lack of respect. The same reason is why a friend of mine makes a living with computer games, while I have the better game ideas but barely make what I spend on engine licenses, etc. and consider it a hobby - when I think a game is done, he starts the polishing process, the other 50% of development.
I personally consider this one of the most dangerous innovations of the (still young) century.
We humans already have built-in bias, and plenty of it. One of these little devils is the one that filters out information counter to your opinions. If you use an agent that shows you only stuff that you like, a lot of people will descend even further into their own personal worlds, and move ever further away from reality.
Every once in a while, you need to be confronted with views other and your own, and stuff outside your field of interest. We already know what happens otherwise: Your vision gets more and more narrow.
The reasons the US is in bed with countries like Yemen on the matter of the ICC are political. The ICC itself is not perfect, but a big step forward to get rid of the bully mentality. Of course, the bully himself doesn't like that.
Agreed. It's still years behind the original iPhone in visuals.
In terms of UI and ease-of-use, Blackberry's have generally been well-received, even long after the iPhone launch. the Curve 8500, for example, received overwhelmingly favorable reviews.
And again, I agree that it was better than the competition. But that was hardly a battle. Have you ever tried to do anything non-trivial on a Nokia or Siemens of the times? Like setting up a 3-way conference call? The user interfaces on those things were designed by sadistic monkeys with brain damage.
While it's true that RIM has lost marketshare in the US, it is doing incredibly well globally, and has been gaining new users at an incredible rate. (iirc, their user-base has increase 40% this year).
The main reason that RIM is doing well is that in many contexts, it is literally the only option. If you are serious about security, it's the only mobile phone that lets you do what you need to do (disable cameras, encryption, setting corporate policies, etc.).
I'll be the first to agree that the Blackberry was much ahead of the other phones. Like a bike is better than walking. But I don't think the point is even up for discussion - RIM has lost 20% of its market share in the past 2 years alone. That has many reasons, but the superior interface is consistently one of the reasons mentioned when you ask customers.
You're right, of course, and I didn't intend to say that. However, russia alone would've likely fought to an impasse. They had lost not only thousands of trains, but also much of their industrial capabilities. The germans suffered massive losses on the eastern front, but the russians suffered worse, and were losing production capabilities. They stopped the "unstoppable" german war machine, but the price was horrible.
But even had there been peace in the east, the war in western Europe would've still been lost by the Axis, due to sheer numbers. The price, however, would've been several times higher without the russians.
But that, exactly, is the point. And also the brilliance of Steve.
You see, ideas are a dime a dozen. Executing them is gold. Executing them well is platinum with diamonds.
Pretty much everyone here on/. had at least one of the gamechanger ideas that made someone else rich. Because the idea is worthless - original or not. It is turning your idea into something that you can give to other people that it becomes worthy.
I understand fully the intent to not be tried by the laws of a country you just conquered. Heck, the basic thing you did there was illegal, who cares about the minor details that were likewise?
However, there's such a thing as international law, and conventions. Stuff that is not the equivalent of pork being illegal or women having to dress in a certain way. Stuff like not killing or raping people just because you can.
So what about the cases where "their" definition of wrong is quite agreeable? You can't seriously demand that some peasant in backwater Iraq, who's happy if he has running water twice a week, brings a lawsuit in a US court. He simply doesn't have any realistic way of doing that.
A lot of real crimes will go unpunished.
Yes, that is normal in a war.
Just stop pretending. This is not at all about not being tried for breaking the Sabbath. It's about protecting murderers, rapists and other criminals because we don't really want the public to know how horrible war is.
I understand fully the intent to not be tried by the laws of a country you just conquered. Heck, the basic thing you did there was illegal, who cares about the minor details that were likewise?
However, there's such a thing as international law, and conventions. Stuff that is not the equivalent of pork being illegal or women having to dress in a certain way. Stuff like not killing or raping people just because you can.
And immunity is too easy a way out there. It may seem obvious that you'd want those bad apples tried in a US court which you trust, according to the court system you trust. However, you are denying the victims or their families to have the culprit tried in one of their courts that they trust (well, maybe, but you get the point).
Your points are all valid.
They just ignore the equally valid points that the victims of non-trivial crimes have.
Would you want to live in a world where China was the only global super power? I wouldn't want to see what China's motivation for war would be?
Uh, same as the US? Resources, strategic locations, egomania and creating markets for the military industry?
China has grievences or claims against all of the above- if the US didn't have a military presence- all the above may have felt the wrath of China by now.
That's speculation. I can not disprove them, though I don't think the Chinese are entire irrational, and probably realize that most of these countries are more valuable to them as partners and markets than they are as battlegrounds.
Seriously, the US has invaded and bombed a ton of countries since WW2 (about 50, I think). The funny thing about all of them is that at least at the respective times none of them were important market places for US industries.
The main legacy of the two world wars was that they demonstrated how much modern wars are about attrition and economy. The US didn't win WW1 because they had the better soldiers (they didn't, in fact the first deployments were pretty much slaughtered like cattle, until the army radically changed their training methods) nor did it win WW2 because it had the superior technology (why do you think so many german scientists and engineer found new homes in the USA after the war?). They won because their industrial and military output, as the only major war participant unaffected by bombings or invading forces, surpassed the Axis. They could afford to lose 2 planes for every 1 german, because they could still ramp up production. A look at the production numbers on a timeline makes it trivial to see that the war turned around almost precisely at the point in time where Allied military production became larger than Axis production.
Everyone but the US has since realized that we can do the same thing without the ugly war distraction. Especially the Chinese. They have enough military and enough interesting toys (nukes, sunburn missiles, etc.) to make sure only a fool would want a war with them, but the real conflict is fought in the factories and universities.
I bought the original iPhone as soon as it was available without a SIM lock in my country (i.e. a few months after release). I had also owned a couple Nokias, and several PDAs.
The iPhone was the first device to realize that a smartphone should be smart first, and phone second. I didn't buy it for the phone, I bought it because it was the PDA I had always wanted that nobody else could deliver./. people tend to look at things from a technological perspective. From that I agree that the iPhone was a sizeable evolutionary step, but not revolutionary. But you guys too often ignore that technology isn't the only thing that matters. Usability is a huge and important thing. In fact, I should say "design", but most people misunderstand design as being only about visuals. You make "polished as hell" sound like that's an afterthought and not all that important. But it is hugely important.
Of course, he didn't specify which ideas had been stolen, but I struggle to think of anything that the iPhone does which isn't just using a Mac/Windows boiled down to a phone-sized device. I'm sure someone will point one out to me.
You only need to look at the crap that Nokia called a "user interface" pre-iPhone, or the abomination that windows mobile was back then, or the BBS-era interface of the Blackberry devices to realize that the iPhone interface was, in fact, revolutionary.
It may not have been unique - there were similar ideas around in prototypes from other companies - but if it had all been that obvious - why did 99% of the other mobile phones suddenly seemed 10 years older and more primitive the day after the iPhone announcement?
Fortunately for Apple, they don't need to bring prices down to "normal people" levels -- they have a following of wealthy aficionados who will pay premium prices.
I'm not sure if you are smoking something illegal, or I've moved into the "wealthy" category without noticing, but none of that strikes me as very true.
Yes, Apple absolutely is a brand. If you compare an iPod with some no-name MP3-Player, the later will be cheaper. And if you compare an iMac with some superstore offer-of-the-week, the iMac will be a lot more expensive.
But Apple is not so different from any other brand. Nike stuff is more expensive than lesser known brands, and a BMW car is more expensive than most others.
However, like other brands, you also get something for your money. In the case of BMW, it's a great car and a pleasurable ride. In the case of fashion labels, it's mostly recognition and other intangible values. For Apple devices, it's usability and integration.
And simple numbers show you that iPod, iPhone, etc. are not luxury goods - they are selling a shitload of those things, if all the people buying them are "wealthy" then we don't have an economic crisis.
you don't need to be a computer scientist to use a Windows Phone.'"
True. You need to be a total idiot.
Really, Balmer, that was way too easy. You need to realize where MS is this decade: Nobody loves you anymore, and your monopoly is crumbling. You've done an excellent job delaying the downfall of MS, but as the company is a dinosaur unable to re-invent itself, playing the FUD card again and again and again will accomplish one thing: Using it up.
Not necessarily. There are a couple MMOs out there that are genuinely fun and if they are built on the principle of addiction, it is very well hidden. Guild Wars is still one of my favorites for that very reason. They already had your money (it had no subscription, you paid once and then could play), so their goal was to make you want more (expansion packs), but I never got the feeling that the game was a "trailer" for the expansion packs. Maybe because they did things so differently from everyone else in the industry - for example, no expansion pack raised the level cap.
I'm sure there are more exotics like this. I'd like to hear about them.
Slashdot Mirror
The ICC does not have the means to enforce there judgment.
Neither does any other court. It's called separation of powers and we as a civilization are fairly proud of it.
Laws, both international and domestic, are meaningless without the ability to apply force when needed to enforce the law.
Which is why the ICC is accompanied by an international treaty that countries sign - almost all non-tyranny countries on the planet have signed up, I think the US is the only democracy that hasn't. Enforcement is a part of the treaty.
I visited 14 countries over the past 3 years and the only animosity I encountered was from a drunk in an English pub.
Very few europeans are openly anti-american. However, the unrestricted love and admiration that once existed has quite dropped. Not to the point that many would actually be unfriendly to any particular american - most of us realize that what we dislike is the whole, not the parts. But american international politics, for example, has very few fans.
I'm sorry, but are you just dense or is this a troll?
The polish is the functionality. A voice-recognition that you constantly have to correct is useless, even if "the functionality is there". A personal assistant that isn't properly integrated with your personal data is useless. Voice commands that provide too small a subset of functionality won't get used.
Need an example? Here, I even have an anti-Apple one: The voice recognition in every Mac since I don't know when. Played with it a little, found it useless. If I were disabled, it would certainly be very welcome. For a regular person, keyboard and mouse are always faster and more precise.
Siri was a good way along. But to become a real PA, it needed more integration. Here's a Siri review of the App Store version:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/04/siri-iphone-personal-assistant/
As you can see easily, it integrated with a lot of websites, but little on the phone itself. But that's exactly what you want in a PA - make calls, set reminders (real ones, not the "send me an email" kind of the original Siri app), interface with contacts, calendar and all the other data you already have on there.
Of course the ICC prosecutes crime that some country doesn't. That's the whole point. It was created so dictators couldn't go about their merry genocidal ways by making their actions legal in the country they ruled.
The "feature" of the judicial system you laud is exactly what allows these people to get away with it.
Oh, and do I need to point out that the whole idea is american? The Statute of Rome is a direct consequence of the Nuremberg trials, which are considered questionable by some legal scholars exactly because what the Nazis did was legal in Germany at that time.
So, your choice: Either you can prosecute Nazis via some kind of international law, or you can totally respect national laws and that means accepting that what people like them do is legal in their country.
Your only other option is hypocrisy - not accepting the rules you force on others when they inconvenience yourself. And that's the bully mentality.
Thankfully this trend is creating an bipartisan political support for the US to scale back it's international footprint and finally let others deal with their own problems for a change.
Frankly, most of the rest of the world wants nothing more. The whole Al Qaida thing? The original intent of Osama bin Laden was to make the US leave the holy sites of Islam. Anti-American sentiments in Europe? All caused by your tendency to meddle in things that aren't yours. Why do you think Europeans would dislike the US? Your comedy is bad, but not that bad, and we kind of like Coke and computers.
That's true and a very good point.
So, I amend mine, and add: "I don't want to return to those dark ages"
Almost.
It isn't the technology. But it is the polish and the ease of use.
It was just to demonstrate how fast someone could come up with a similar project.
It's easy to do when the codebase is available. There are both voice recognition libraries for Android, and early code for what eventually became Siri.
But enjoy paying an extra $800 for a phone you don't need.
Smartass. First, it's not $800, it's $200 to $400 depending on the model you buy. Second, I didn't. Third, when I did (iPhone 4), it was for a device that I needed.
So, basically, the word "enjoy" was the only word in that sentence with at least some truth value.
Still, comparing screenshots of that 7290 and the first iPhone, they don't look all that different (from a purely visual perspective). Clock, battery and signal indicator at the top, grid of icons below.
You look at basic technological data points.
Almost nobody who is not a geek does that. People look at design, beauty, visual feedback. And that's where Apple shines. There's a couple great articles on the web picking apart things like the various transitions and animations. When Apple designs a swipe, it doesn't just move the screen contents left or right, they actually animate different elements of the screen differently. The end result is more pleasing and has better user feedback, even though you barely notice the differences consciously.
it is not a matter of Apple having developed anything original at all.
No, but it's a matter of Apple polishing it and turning a voice-recognition prototype into a personal assistant. The true strength of Apple has never been revolutionary innovation. It has always been turning innovation into great products. The first Apple computers didn't do anything that was not available elsewhere - but "elsewhere" meant either a hefty bill, several times that of the Apple machine, or it meant DIY.
Same for their recent successes. The iPod didn't invent the MP3 player, but it took the market by storm because it took the technology available and turned it into something lots of people wanted.
Same with the iPhone.
Same with Siri now. Yes, I consider that seperate from the iPhone. I'm sure that once it has served its purpose as a driver for iPhone 4S sales, it will find its way into other Apple products. I'd love to have Siri on my iMac.
Another bunch of freaks who just don't get it.
The polish and the fact that the Apple stuff is finished when it hits the street is what makes a good part of it's appeal. Don't confuse "finished" with "perfect", it isn't. I have a couple remarks on what could/should be improved. But I've not gotten the impression of getting a half-finished DIY product as with Linux or Android (don't get me wrong, for some things, that's exactly what I want. But not for my phone).
8 hours can give you a prototype. It'll take at least a couple weeks before you can consider it "done".
Indeed voice commands have been in many phones for a while,
Including older iPhones - but here's the problem: They barely work. I use it very occasionally for simple things, like getting the time in winter when the phone is somewhere in an inside pocket.
From all I've seen, Siri works. That right there is the entire secret. It doesn't have 25613 features, but it works.
What's worse is Apple probably managed to get a patent or two on Siri.
They bought it. If there were any patents, they certainly now own them, but it's not Apple's fault or decision. Siri was almost complete when it got bought up.
It is so obvious that a bunch of coders at a hackathon could put something similar together in a few hours and have a demo of the same thing. Oh... wait... they've done exactly that, it's called Iris Alpha from a firm called, and it took eight hours.
Allegedly. Plust quite frankly, this nice video here:
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.dexetra.iris
has me minus-convinced. Funny how there is always a cut between the question and the answer...
Point is, while Apple's idea is clever, the polish and packaging good and the marketing cleverest, but it is absolutely not start of the art artificial intelligence,
Agreed. It is, however, the state of the art of the personal assistant. It is precisely the polish, integration and Steve's obsession with perfection that makes it a success. I'm sure there's at least a hundred prototype projects around that can do more, have more advanced AI, etc. etc. etc. - but none of them are in a state where you could put them out into a mass market.
And that's why Apple is making more money than they know what to do with, and the Iris Alpha coders are playing "look ma" in the Android market place.
Personal disclaimer: Don't get this wrong as a lack of respect. The same reason is why a friend of mine makes a living with computer games, while I have the better game ideas but barely make what I spend on engine licenses, etc. and consider it a hobby - when I think a game is done, he starts the polishing process, the other 50% of development.
And Apple is a master of that part.
I personally consider this one of the most dangerous innovations of the (still young) century.
We humans already have built-in bias, and plenty of it. One of these little devils is the one that filters out information counter to your opinions. If you use an agent that shows you only stuff that you like, a lot of people will descend even further into their own personal worlds, and move ever further away from reality.
Every once in a while, you need to be confronted with views other and your own, and stuff outside your field of interest. We already know what happens otherwise: Your vision gets more and more narrow.
You've had too much of the propaganda machine.
The reasons the US is in bed with countries like Yemen on the matter of the ICC are political. The ICC itself is not perfect, but a big step forward to get rid of the bully mentality. Of course, the bully himself doesn't like that.
The default theme looks much better.
Agreed. It's still years behind the original iPhone in visuals.
In terms of UI and ease-of-use, Blackberry's have generally been well-received, even long after the iPhone launch. the Curve 8500, for example, received overwhelmingly favorable reviews.
And again, I agree that it was better than the competition. But that was hardly a battle. Have you ever tried to do anything non-trivial on a Nokia or Siemens of the times? Like setting up a 3-way conference call? The user interfaces on those things were designed by sadistic monkeys with brain damage.
While it's true that RIM has lost marketshare in the US, it is doing incredibly well globally, and has been gaining new users at an incredible rate. (iirc, their user-base has increase 40% this year).
The main reason that RIM is doing well is that in many contexts, it is literally the only option. If you are serious about security, it's the only mobile phone that lets you do what you need to do (disable cameras, encryption, setting corporate policies, etc.).
Seriously?
Here's a screenshot from a 2005 Blackberry:
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/photos/2005/tour05/news/?id=mobile_live/L1000454
I'll be the first to agree that the Blackberry was much ahead of the other phones. Like a bike is better than walking. But I don't think the point is even up for discussion - RIM has lost 20% of its market share in the past 2 years alone. That has many reasons, but the superior interface is consistently one of the reasons mentioned when you ask customers.
You're right, of course, and I didn't intend to say that. However, russia alone would've likely fought to an impasse. They had lost not only thousands of trains, but also much of their industrial capabilities. The germans suffered massive losses on the eastern front, but the russians suffered worse, and were losing production capabilities. They stopped the "unstoppable" german war machine, but the price was horrible.
But even had there been peace in the east, the war in western Europe would've still been lost by the Axis, due to sheer numbers. The price, however, would've been several times higher without the russians.
But that, exactly, is the point. And also the brilliance of Steve.
You see, ideas are a dime a dozen. Executing them is gold. Executing them well is platinum with diamonds.
Pretty much everyone here on /. had at least one of the gamechanger ideas that made someone else rich. Because the idea is worthless - original or not. It is turning your idea into something that you can give to other people that it becomes worthy.
I understand fully the intent to not be tried by the laws of a country you just conquered. Heck, the basic thing you did there was illegal, who cares about the minor details that were likewise?
However, there's such a thing as international law, and conventions. Stuff that is not the equivalent of pork being illegal or women having to dress in a certain way. Stuff like not killing or raping people just because you can.
So what about the cases where "their" definition of wrong is quite agreeable? You can't seriously demand that some peasant in backwater Iraq, who's happy if he has running water twice a week, brings a lawsuit in a US court. He simply doesn't have any realistic way of doing that.
A lot of real crimes will go unpunished.
Yes, that is normal in a war.
Just stop pretending. This is not at all about not being tried for breaking the Sabbath. It's about protecting murderers, rapists and other criminals because we don't really want the public to know how horrible war is.
I understand fully the intent to not be tried by the laws of a country you just conquered. Heck, the basic thing you did there was illegal, who cares about the minor details that were likewise?
However, there's such a thing as international law, and conventions. Stuff that is not the equivalent of pork being illegal or women having to dress in a certain way. Stuff like not killing or raping people just because you can.
And immunity is too easy a way out there. It may seem obvious that you'd want those bad apples tried in a US court which you trust, according to the court system you trust. However, you are denying the victims or their families to have the culprit tried in one of their courts that they trust (well, maybe, but you get the point).
Your points are all valid.
They just ignore the equally valid points that the victims of non-trivial crimes have.
Would you want to live in a world where China was the only global super power? I wouldn't want to see what China's motivation for war would be?
Uh, same as the US? Resources, strategic locations, egomania and creating markets for the military industry?
China has grievences or claims against all of the above- if the US didn't have a military presence- all the above may have felt the wrath of China by now.
That's speculation. I can not disprove them, though I don't think the Chinese are entire irrational, and probably realize that most of these countries are more valuable to them as partners and markets than they are as battlegrounds.
Seriously, the US has invaded and bombed a ton of countries since WW2 (about 50, I think). The funny thing about all of them is that at least at the respective times none of them were important market places for US industries.
The main legacy of the two world wars was that they demonstrated how much modern wars are about attrition and economy. The US didn't win WW1 because they had the better soldiers (they didn't, in fact the first deployments were pretty much slaughtered like cattle, until the army radically changed their training methods) nor did it win WW2 because it had the superior technology (why do you think so many german scientists and engineer found new homes in the USA after the war?). They won because their industrial and military output, as the only major war participant unaffected by bombings or invading forces, surpassed the Axis. They could afford to lose 2 planes for every 1 german, because they could still ramp up production. A look at the production numbers on a timeline makes it trivial to see that the war turned around almost precisely at the point in time where Allied military production became larger than Axis production.
Everyone but the US has since realized that we can do the same thing without the ugly war distraction. Especially the Chinese. They have enough military and enough interesting toys (nukes, sunburn missiles, etc.) to make sure only a fool would want a war with them, but the real conflict is fought in the factories and universities.
Sorry, I have to disagree heavily there.
I bought the original iPhone as soon as it was available without a SIM lock in my country (i.e. a few months after release). I had also owned a couple Nokias, and several PDAs.
The iPhone was the first device to realize that a smartphone should be smart first, and phone second. I didn't buy it for the phone, I bought it because it was the PDA I had always wanted that nobody else could deliver. /. people tend to look at things from a technological perspective. From that I agree that the iPhone was a sizeable evolutionary step, but not revolutionary.
But you guys too often ignore that technology isn't the only thing that matters. Usability is a huge and important thing. In fact, I should say "design", but most people misunderstand design as being only about visuals.
You make "polished as hell" sound like that's an afterthought and not all that important. But it is hugely important.
Of course, he didn't specify which ideas had been stolen, but I struggle to think of anything that the iPhone does which isn't just using a Mac/Windows boiled down to a phone-sized device. I'm sure someone will point one out to me.
You only need to look at the crap that Nokia called a "user interface" pre-iPhone, or the abomination that windows mobile was back then, or the BBS-era interface of the Blackberry devices to realize that the iPhone interface was, in fact, revolutionary.
It may not have been unique - there were similar ideas around in prototypes from other companies - but if it had all been that obvious - why did 99% of the other mobile phones suddenly seemed 10 years older and more primitive the day after the iPhone announcement?
Fortunately for Apple, they don't need to bring prices down to "normal people" levels -- they have a following of wealthy aficionados who will pay premium prices.
I'm not sure if you are smoking something illegal, or I've moved into the "wealthy" category without noticing, but none of that strikes me as very true.
Yes, Apple absolutely is a brand. If you compare an iPod with some no-name MP3-Player, the later will be cheaper. And if you compare an iMac with some superstore offer-of-the-week, the iMac will be a lot more expensive.
But Apple is not so different from any other brand. Nike stuff is more expensive than lesser known brands, and a BMW car is more expensive than most others.
However, like other brands, you also get something for your money. In the case of BMW, it's a great car and a pleasurable ride. In the case of fashion labels, it's mostly recognition and other intangible values. For Apple devices, it's usability and integration.
And simple numbers show you that iPod, iPhone, etc. are not luxury goods - they are selling a shitload of those things, if all the people buying them are "wealthy" then we don't have an economic crisis.
you don't need to be a computer scientist to use a Windows Phone.'"
True. You need to be a total idiot.
Really, Balmer, that was way too easy. You need to realize where MS is this decade: Nobody loves you anymore, and your monopoly is crumbling. You've done an excellent job delaying the downfall of MS, but as the company is a dinosaur unable to re-invent itself, playing the FUD card again and again and again will accomplish one thing: Using it up.
Once you get into the world of DLC and MMORPGs
Not necessarily. There are a couple MMOs out there that are genuinely fun and if they are built on the principle of addiction, it is very well hidden. Guild Wars is still one of my favorites for that very reason. They already had your money (it had no subscription, you paid once and then could play), so their goal was to make you want more (expansion packs), but I never got the feeling that the game was a "trailer" for the expansion packs. Maybe because they did things so differently from everyone else in the industry - for example, no expansion pack raised the level cap.
I'm sure there are more exotics like this. I'd like to hear about them.