The problems you list here apply equally well to government. The FDA is filled with nepotists. The MMS before its name change was just nothing but insiders. Pretty much any government regulatory body is filled with insiders, and only exist to rubber-stamp and green-light the abuses of the corporations.
The problem is that you think these agencies can be reformed. Maybe they could, but you would have to do what China does - literally give the death penalty to regulators who have been found to have shirked their duties and responsibilities.
You can't rely on the government to do the right thing. As long as their budget is getting bigger, they are happy. They literally are in a cartel with the industries they go in and out of (revolving door, remember!) and it is silly to trust them any more than I would trust some corporate body.
Let me repeat: Every argument you make in favor of government regulation can be shown to have the exact same problems as private regulation. Every one of them.
The development cost for most iPhone developers is $99. They aren't quitting their day jobs in order to slave over XCode all day - they are banging these apps out in their spare time.
As the AC said, the author of the linked article has an obvious agenda - to steer people away from iPhone app development, and then he proceeds to put together a bunch of tangled assertions which supposedly support his agenda.
Actually I would bet good money that most people who buy a MSDN license never renew it after their first year, and that most people coding for Windows never make a damn dime on their own time.
Sure they are getting paid "going rate" for a.NET coder, which these days is about $15 / hour, but there isn't even the slightest chance they will hit paydirt. Even if they have a great idea for a new program, and do all the work themselves, the guys on the corporate board will take home most of that cash.
So, in the final analysis, hipsters pay MUCH MUCH better than corporations, as long as you aren't mediocre.
Traffic does not make a site first rate, in my book. Engadget is a shitty site filled with useless advertainment. So what if more people click on it per day.
Popular Science has a bigger circulation than the American Physical Society journal. That does not make Popular Science "better" although it is certainly more profitable.
Identifiable? Perhaps, perhaps not. He just uses Facebook as a way to get email addresses, does not post his real name, and has a photograph with a partially obscured face.
Anyway, it's better than giving away tons of detailed information about yourself to an ethically questionable fuckbag like Fuckerman.
You know a lot of people have turned the price of a Mac and their $99 Developer Program expenses into a shit ton of cash.
Sure, you could try the same trick on Android, but even though there are more Android phones sold now, Apple's App Store accounts for 92% of the cell phone application store bucks spent. App Store coders like me certainly won't miss the competition, anyway, so yeah, stick to your plan of not developing for the iOS. That's the best advice I can give you.
This just in: Slashdot has become a way to drive perhaps hundreds of thousands of hits to any site, no matter how banal or useless, merely by posting something on the front page.
How many times has there been a post about some neat bit of science or technology where instead of linking us to the information directly, we get a link to a poor writeup on a third-rate PR web site, possibly without an actual link to anything more relevant? Is Slashdot completely staffed by people on the SEO take these days?
Fuck this shit. From now on, nobody should EVER CLICK ON A STORY LINK. I know the old joke about not RTFA here, but we should be mindful and deliberate about not reading articles. Instead, plug the relevant terms from the Slashdot link into Google or some other ad-infested piece of shit search engine and make some other fucker 1/1000th of a penny.
Slashdot has jumped the fucking shark. If I wanted to read Engadget (or PRWeb, or whatever other shite site drives "impressions")I would just go to Engadget.
"Remember, if you screw up, you (or your children) gets food poisoning and dies."
THIS IS HOW IT WORKS RIGHT NOW!
Federal food and safety inspectors screw up all the time. They are shielded from blame and despite all the fuckups are still the "official" mandated inspectors.
What about FAA? Why not have a private firm, or group of competing firms, who inspect airlines? Then if I run an airline I can print on my tickets and web sites, "Inspected by Saft-T-Fly, Trip-Assure, and Aviation-Safe, the 3 most trusted firms in aviation safety!" If you are a cheap bastard, you can fly on Value-Rite airlines, who do not advertise any safety inspections at all.
These firms would operate on their reputation, and would probably be more effective and a good deal cheaper than the FAA which is one of the major sources of expenditures for commercial airlines.
The problem is that the government only measures its success by its budget. Other metrics are peripheral. Additionally there is no competition.
However, I am in favor of the FAA inspecting airlines, after all. I just think there should be competition there. Just because a person self-identifies as a libertarian, does not mean that they are against all government intervention across the board. There are a range of libertarians, just like Democrats come in from all across the board, from normal people to frothing communists.
Maybe we could, I dunno, have a private foundation that inspects food? Perhaps they would rely upon their reputation and voluntary industry support in exchange for logo branding that their plant has been inspected?
Right now the FDA is staffed by former food industry lobbyists who have really no real incentive to protect the public. Just because "the government" is doing something does not imply that they are doing it correctly.
"Here's capitalism: A man knocks on your door with an offer, you get to continue top breath his air and eat his food if you suck his cock."
No, here's capitalism: You can choose to produce goods or services in exchange for other goods, services, or money.
Sure, it has its problems, but your little screed shows you to be very ill-informed.
Libertarianism is not a single cult with only one view. It describes a range of political thought. You don't have to be a slave to Ayn Rand in order to subscribe to libertarian thought.
Telnet is also included in ever version of Windows. The telnet client is not a security risk if used properly, and there are devices out there that do not speak SSH.
Sure, running a telnet server could be a security risk. But if you are using it on an intranet, maybe not.
NFS was not "highly insecure" although there have been vulnerabilities in certain implementations.
One key difference between Unix and Unix-like systems, and Windows, is that Windows attracts hordes of clueless morons who use the computer like an expensive typewriter, and do not know about security, nor do they wish to know. If their machine is compromised they bring the machine to the computer man. Linux and Unix users tend to be a bit more savvy.
None? Are you sure? That sounds extremely unlikely.
A lot of the APIs are the same. Win32 was present in both Windows 95 and Windows NT as well. Sure, the kernel is different, but there are lays and layers of DLLs and other software that were identical on both.
Attacked a lot? Sure. compromised a lot? No. Barely ever. The only common Linux attacks are just scripts that check the system for default passwords. There are other attacks but they are extremely rare.
I mean, it happens, but it is so damn rare to come across an infected Linux (or any Unix or Unix-like OS) machine that you might as well also claim that women give birth to sextuplets "a lot" as well.
It seems you know what is good for people better than they themselves do. Better strap everybody into your high-chair and spoon feed them your medicine!
Actually a lot of people are pressured into using facebook. Most of the people I know who use it have been pressured into using it. My buddy lives in Japan, and he was pressured into using it by his family who abide in the USA. Other people have been "forced" into using facebook in order to keep a relatively accessible online presence for their small business, in order to connect with a client base. People hate getting email from businesses, because they see it as spam, but for some reason they love getting updates from businesses they "like."
You don't have to be a cock-in-the-ass about it, you know.
So he can look people up? I don't know if you ever used the Facebook "search" function, but it's there so you can look people up. How do you imagine people use it? Do they sign up for an account and then just sit back and never search for anybody, merely hoping that people will search for them?
The way he did it was ideal. Use Facebook as a way to get email addresses of people he wants to communicate with, and never post anything.
He seeks out the people he wants to find. He's not interested in hearing from some long-forgotten third grade classmate. He simply wants to be able to connect with the people he chooses to.
Well, the point is that Zuck himself has admitted that he thinks I am a dumb fuck for trusting him. He has gone on the record and said that he doesn't believe in privacy on the internet anyway.
He considers me a dumb fuck for even getting a facebook account in the first place, for giving him that information. Unfortunately like many people here, I was sort of roped into it by my family. They think it's awfully convenient and just think I'm a tool for suggesting that facebook might not be ultimately a good thing for the world. "Oh but I can keep up with all the people I never bothered to keep up with." Whoopee, but you can see the attraction there for some folks.
Hell, I know one girl who accepts friend requests from anybody, and posts a lot of suggestive photos of herself. She thinks it's all in fun, but I think she should be *very* afraid of that sort of interaction with thousands of random strangers.
My other buddy did facebook correctly. He used part of his real last name for his first name, made up a fictional last name, and posts nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
There are basically only three platforms: old iPhone / iPod Touch, retina iPhone / iPod Touch, iPad.
The problems you list here apply equally well to government. The FDA is filled with nepotists. The MMS before its name change was just nothing but insiders. Pretty much any government regulatory body is filled with insiders, and only exist to rubber-stamp and green-light the abuses of the corporations.
The problem is that you think these agencies can be reformed. Maybe they could, but you would have to do what China does - literally give the death penalty to regulators who have been found to have shirked their duties and responsibilities.
You can't rely on the government to do the right thing. As long as their budget is getting bigger, they are happy. They literally are in a cartel with the industries they go in and out of (revolving door, remember!) and it is silly to trust them any more than I would trust some corporate body.
Let me repeat: Every argument you make in favor of government regulation can be shown to have the exact same problems as private regulation. Every one of them.
Read your linked article again. It's ridiculous.
The development cost for most iPhone developers is $99. They aren't quitting their day jobs in order to slave over XCode all day - they are banging these apps out in their spare time.
As the AC said, the author of the linked article has an obvious agenda - to steer people away from iPhone app development, and then he proceeds to put together a bunch of tangled assertions which supposedly support his agenda.
Actually I would bet good money that most people who buy a MSDN license never renew it after their first year, and that most people coding for Windows never make a damn dime on their own time.
Sure they are getting paid "going rate" for a .NET coder, which these days is about $15 / hour, but there isn't even the slightest chance they will hit paydirt. Even if they have a great idea for a new program, and do all the work themselves, the guys on the corporate board will take home most of that cash.
So, in the final analysis, hipsters pay MUCH MUCH better than corporations, as long as you aren't mediocre.
Traffic does not make a site first rate, in my book. Engadget is a shitty site filled with useless advertainment. So what if more people click on it per day.
Popular Science has a bigger circulation than the American Physical Society journal. That does not make Popular Science "better" although it is certainly more profitable.
Identifiable? Perhaps, perhaps not. He just uses Facebook as a way to get email addresses, does not post his real name, and has a photograph with a partially obscured face.
Anyway, it's better than giving away tons of detailed information about yourself to an ethically questionable fuckbag like Fuckerman.
You know a lot of people have turned the price of a Mac and their $99 Developer Program expenses into a shit ton of cash.
Sure, you could try the same trick on Android, but even though there are more Android phones sold now, Apple's App Store accounts for 92% of the cell phone application store bucks spent. App Store coders like me certainly won't miss the competition, anyway, so yeah, stick to your plan of not developing for the iOS. That's the best advice I can give you.
Not me any more!
I am no longer going to just blindly click on whatever Slashdot links to. If it sounds interesting I will google or wikipedia for it.
This just in: Slashdot has become a way to drive perhaps hundreds of thousands of hits to any site, no matter how banal or useless, merely by posting something on the front page.
How many times has there been a post about some neat bit of science or technology where instead of linking us to the information directly, we get a link to a poor writeup on a third-rate PR web site, possibly without an actual link to anything more relevant? Is Slashdot completely staffed by people on the SEO take these days?
Fuck this shit. From now on, nobody should EVER CLICK ON A STORY LINK. I know the old joke about not RTFA here, but we should be mindful and deliberate about not reading articles. Instead, plug the relevant terms from the Slashdot link into Google or some other ad-infested piece of shit search engine and make some other fucker 1/1000th of a penny.
Slashdot has jumped the fucking shark. If I wanted to read Engadget (or PRWeb, or whatever other shite site drives "impressions")I would just go to Engadget.
"Remember, if you screw up, you (or your children) gets food poisoning and dies."
THIS IS HOW IT WORKS RIGHT NOW!
Federal food and safety inspectors screw up all the time. They are shielded from blame and despite all the fuckups are still the "official" mandated inspectors.
What about FAA? Why not have a private firm, or group of competing firms, who inspect airlines? Then if I run an airline I can print on my tickets and web sites, "Inspected by Saft-T-Fly, Trip-Assure, and Aviation-Safe, the 3 most trusted firms in aviation safety!" If you are a cheap bastard, you can fly on Value-Rite airlines, who do not advertise any safety inspections at all.
These firms would operate on their reputation, and would probably be more effective and a good deal cheaper than the FAA which is one of the major sources of expenditures for commercial airlines.
The problem is that the government only measures its success by its budget. Other metrics are peripheral. Additionally there is no competition.
However, I am in favor of the FAA inspecting airlines, after all. I just think there should be competition there. Just because a person self-identifies as a libertarian, does not mean that they are against all government intervention across the board. There are a range of libertarians, just like Democrats come in from all across the board, from normal people to frothing communists.
Maybe we could, I dunno, have a private foundation that inspects food? Perhaps they would rely upon their reputation and voluntary industry support in exchange for logo branding that their plant has been inspected?
Right now the FDA is staffed by former food industry lobbyists who have really no real incentive to protect the public. Just because "the government" is doing something does not imply that they are doing it correctly.
"Here's capitalism: A man knocks on your door with an offer, you get to continue top breath his air and eat his food if you suck his cock."
No, here's capitalism: You can choose to produce goods or services in exchange for other goods, services, or money.
Sure, it has its problems, but your little screed shows you to be very ill-informed.
Libertarianism is not a single cult with only one view. It describes a range of political thought. You don't have to be a slave to Ayn Rand in order to subscribe to libertarian thought.
Not unless they are using the LiveCD only, and not installing onto their machine.
The vast majority of Linux attacks are SSH probes, and they fail most of the time.
Just because Ubuntu Server has services running, that does not mean that (even if vulnerable) the box will be hacked.
Linux Flash still comes from Adobe, ultimately, and Java comes from Oracle (depending on the distro).
Telnet is also included in ever version of Windows. The telnet client is not a security risk if used properly, and there are devices out there that do not speak SSH.
Sure, running a telnet server could be a security risk. But if you are using it on an intranet, maybe not.
NFS was not "highly insecure" although there have been vulnerabilities in certain implementations.
One key difference between Unix and Unix-like systems, and Windows, is that Windows attracts hordes of clueless morons who use the computer like an expensive typewriter, and do not know about security, nor do they wish to know. If their machine is compromised they bring the machine to the computer man. Linux and Unix users tend to be a bit more savvy.
None? Are you sure? That sounds extremely unlikely.
A lot of the APIs are the same. Win32 was present in both Windows 95 and Windows NT as well. Sure, the kernel is different, but there are lays and layers of DLLs and other software that were identical on both.
Linux gets attacked and compromised a lot.
Attacked a lot? Sure. compromised a lot? No. Barely ever. The only common Linux attacks are just scripts that check the system for default passwords. There are other attacks but they are extremely rare.
I mean, it happens, but it is so damn rare to come across an infected Linux (or any Unix or Unix-like OS) machine that you might as well also claim that women give birth to sextuplets "a lot" as well.
It seems you know what is good for people better than they themselves do. Better strap everybody into your high-chair and spoon feed them your medicine!
What if there were a few Jews that were a bit too thrifty in Germany in the 1930s?
Actually a lot of people are pressured into using facebook. Most of the people I know who use it have been pressured into using it. My buddy lives in Japan, and he was pressured into using it by his family who abide in the USA. Other people have been "forced" into using facebook in order to keep a relatively accessible online presence for their small business, in order to connect with a client base. People hate getting email from businesses, because they see it as spam, but for some reason they love getting updates from businesses they "like."
You don't have to be a cock-in-the-ass about it, you know.
The interview part was not a joke. That's what Fuckerberg actually said. I merely changed a few things to reflect the power Facebook has now.
So he can look people up? I don't know if you ever used the Facebook "search" function, but it's there so you can look people up. How do you imagine people use it? Do they sign up for an account and then just sit back and never search for anybody, merely hoping that people will search for them?
The way he did it was ideal. Use Facebook as a way to get email addresses of people he wants to communicate with, and never post anything.
He seeks out the people he wants to find. He's not interested in hearing from some long-forgotten third grade classmate. He simply wants to be able to connect with the people he chooses to.
Well, the point is that Zuck himself has admitted that he thinks I am a dumb fuck for trusting him. He has gone on the record and said that he doesn't believe in privacy on the internet anyway.
He considers me a dumb fuck for even getting a facebook account in the first place, for giving him that information. Unfortunately like many people here, I was sort of roped into it by my family. They think it's awfully convenient and just think I'm a tool for suggesting that facebook might not be ultimately a good thing for the world. "Oh but I can keep up with all the people I never bothered to keep up with." Whoopee, but you can see the attraction there for some folks.
Hell, I know one girl who accepts friend requests from anybody, and posts a lot of suggestive photos of herself. She thinks it's all in fun, but I think she should be *very* afraid of that sort of interaction with thousands of random strangers.
My other buddy did facebook correctly. He used part of his real last name for his first name, made up a fictional last name, and posts nothing.
You mean, a well established video format vs. one which is both technically inferior and not built into damn near everything now?
You do realize that despite this, you can embed video into a web page using any codec you wish.