I have an iPhone and a MacBook. But Jobs is increasingly pissing me off.
I gotta jailbreak my phone that I bought just so a) I can put the music on it that I want, b) it can't be turned off remotely or apps uninstalled without my say-so, c) it can have a video camera without a $$ upgrade - that's all bad enough. But I knew that going in.
But the way Jobs is going about deciding what CONTENT I get to have? WTF is that?
Sign me up for an Android when my contract with AT&T is done. That is, if I don't just switch the iPhone to Verizon anyway - another attempt to control my choices that Jobs can blow me for.
When Apple gets a hot actress to voice a perfect guide for how to live your life including martial arts training, then I'll be *all over* that iPad.
Oh yeah - no phone or teleconferencing.
iPad fail, Diamond Age win.
Exactly right. The Justice system isn't really about justice - it's a giant machine that pursues law enforcement and is fed with convictions.
It's a good thing we have it, and we need it, but we need to be aware of it's limitations.
3 years in prison and ten years listed as a sex offender?? ffs.
This guy needs a new lawyer. Either that, or I honestly wonder if he actually is guilty of something worse.
There's no doubt it sucks, and recreating the data as the scientists used it will be inconvenient.
I'm just pointing out that the data isn't gone forever.
Actually the raw data has not been destroyed. Only these specific scientists' copies of it. The raw data still exists, at the various meterological services which originally recorded the data.
Just because Federal-funded research **may** be influenced by Federal $, does NOT mean that corporate-funded research is clean.
If anything, Federal-funded research is more likely to be clean IF ONLY because the Federal government is ultimately beholden to the voters, whereas companies are only beholden to their stockholders, if at all.
To really be fair in comparing corporate-funded climate science vs. US gov't-funded climate science, you should include all US oil companies and not just Exxon.
Suggesting it might be better, based on scientific evidence, if industries didn't pollute in certain ways is NOT going "Pol Pot".
Let me refresh your memory:
Climate scientists suggest that if we reduce the amount of sulfates, we'll have less acid rain. Sulfates reduced; the amount of acid rain shrinks.
Climate scientists suggest that aerosols are hurting the ozone layer, and point to an actual growing hole in the ozone layer. We reduce aerosols, the hole in the ozone layer shrinks.
I'm not at all suggesting climate scientists are infallible - they should be questioned like anyone else.
But to suggest that reasonable restrictions on companies that produce pollution is "going Pol Pot?" FFS.
Maybe you're right, in a way - Midwesterners may tend not to believe pollution can damage the environment, if they live somewhere that's untouched by industrial waste. If that's the case, they should go live in New Jersey for a while.
The fact that be doesn't even answer, implies that he at least doesn't have a problem with girls being raped in murdered. Or little boys. Or alien goatsucking fiends. Or alien goatsucking fiends being wrongly imprisoned for rape and murder that could just as easily have been committed by Glenn Beck.
Now of course I'm not saying that he did. But his silence on this important topic **and** alien goatsucking fiends...isn't that interesting? I'm just say that it's interesting, you know?
(I can has cable show now?)
Considering the crap the kids had to go through to even reach the public school **and then** face a deadly environment *IN THAT SCHOOL*, even showing up and paying half attention is a heroic achievement in attempting to better oneself.
Seriously, how many of you have ever have a gun or knife held on you? With no chance of police help? How much do you think that would screw with your ability to soak up knowledge?
And public schools are so far from equal in terms of resources its shocking. I grew up in NJ. In my wealthy home town, the high school had a frickin' robot-operated lathe - while not 1 hour's drive away, the high school in Newark didn't have enough **Chairs**.
My point: the differences between wealthy students and stone broke students aren't due to "culture" - unless you expand culture to include the relative safety of the schools AND the amount of resources they get.
They are collectivists, socialists, communist, etc. They need others to support them, whether they admit/accept this or not, their actions (or lack of) hinder their ability to grow wealth.
Those wealthy who benefit bailouts, corporate tax breaks, and other platinum welfare are exactly the same. They just don't call themselves "collectivists, socialists or communists" - but they are just fine with unearned benefits from the taxpayer's pockets, as long as they or their company get them.
I am neither poor nor communist, socialist or collectivist. I just try to have a clear eye about the realities of our system and culture. Welfare for the rich, tough love for the masses.
I think the public understands core services just fine. They just consider "social services" which feed kids and families and support the disadvantaged to be a core service.
I'm recalling this from the late 90's. It was a virus that was supposed to make it impossible for office workers to use their computers from 6 AM to 10 AM, and encourage them to listen to Howard Stern instead.
This guy's using Windows 95 to run his business as a veterinarian. I expect he doesn't need or have the time or interest to learn linux. Drive space is no way an issue, either; the guy probably doesn't even listen to mp3's...
It's fine to love *nix for it's many values, but most people don't need them and the learning curve is steep. Most people just need something they're familiar with to get them through their day.
What's wrong with this again? Why does the world need you to second guess everyone's choices?
a) I am not second guessing anyone's choices. You are projecting something onto me that is coming from you.
b) when something that's vital becomes scarce, the fact that it's cost increases doesn't solve the problem.
Imagine a long-expected famine comes, and there isn't enough wheat to go around. The price of bread costs $1000 a loaf. Does that solve the problem? No. People will starve to death - or switch to other foods if they can.
But if people wait until they *have to* have other forms of food to grow, process, ship, buy and then eat - they will starve to death or suffer greatly until those forms of food are available. WHich is a completely unnecessary amount of suffering, if instead they had just planned ahead for the expected and predicted famine.
And if the famine never came, no problem - they have a range of foods other than wheat.
Do you see?
If you're smart, you plan ahead for crises that are clearly coming. You don't do nothing and hope that the 'Free Market' will solve it. That's like hoping Zeus will solve it.
Now you can intentionally use the Free Market to solve it - by providing incentives.
Also, why would anyone in the coal or oil industry want to pretend there's plenty when there's actually a shortage?
So they can keep making money for the next quarter, year, or 20 years. Because that's all executives are hired to care about. And they can make far more money if 100% of US energy needs are switched to coal - as opposed to if even 80% are switched to coal and 20% is switched to renewable sources.
You can see that, right?
Still waiting for that "there's enough coal for hundreds of years" citation, by the way.
1. You assume that spending money looking for other fuels now, will impoverish people. Not true.
2. You assume that we will better be able to research alternative fuels when fossil fuels become too hard to retrieve therefore expensive. Not true. This will be a far harder time to begin the research and infrastructure necessary.
3. You are really collapsing this idea of researching alternative fuels with "tyranny". They have nothing to do with each other.
Giving tax breaks and funding research is not tyranny and does not crush people - AND is not against the "Free Market" either.
Oh, come on. Solar, wind, geothermal, et al are not magic. Getting energy from these methods are already understood science.
The problem is in getting energy from them cheaply enough, that it replaces the current cost of fossil fuels. Whether or not that's feasible is an engineering challenge - it's not magic beans!
Please.
And why wouldn't we use cheap energy? ***Because, among many other reasons, fossil fuels are finite and not renewable. So it won't be cheap when we run out of it.***
And our population and thus energy needs are ****increasing**** even as our supply is decreasing. So soon we are going to be hit with a double whammy - decreasing amounts of fuel when we need more fuel than ever.
You can see the basic facts of that situation, right?
That's why I would think it's smart to tray and switch off of fossil fuels for a lot of reasons, rather than wait to see if we survive - when there's already a lot of problems coming our way. Whether or not you accept the current scientific consensus on Global warming, that's really only one of several problems that come from pretending that fossil fuels will last forever. Coal is a band-aid we may need to tide us over - but it's gonna run out too.
So we agree that solar, wind, geothermal, and other sorts of energy will be progress. Your argument is that they won't be as much progress as, say, switching to coal.
That's a subject that reasonable people may differ on. The one thing that renewable forms of energy have over coal and even nuclear, is that the fuel is limited *and* leaves behind dangerous waste products. Coal is also dangerously polluting in it's actual usage - which is a concern not only for Global Warming, but for general human health.
So renewable forms of energy also have this benefit: once set up, they use no fuel. All the cost is in the development, and then the maintenance; none is the fuel usage.
Me, I'm for whatever works. But it makes logical sense to me that if you can build a coal-burning power plant and a plant that generates electricity from ocean wave motion for about the same amount of materials, and the ocean wave motion might require more R & D up front but, once done, has zero fuel costs and zero pollution, that is greater progress than the coal plant - because savings will only increase over time.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahem. T-Mobile. I, uh, accidentally hit the Verizon key on my keyboard. Because....it's an iPad. That's it. That's the ticket.
I have an iPhone and a MacBook. But Jobs is increasingly pissing me off.
I gotta jailbreak my phone that I bought just so a) I can put the music on it that I want, b) it can't be turned off remotely or apps uninstalled without my say-so, c) it can have a video camera without a $$ upgrade - that's all bad enough. But I knew that going in.
But the way Jobs is going about deciding what CONTENT I get to have? WTF is that?
Sign me up for an Android when my contract with AT&T is done. That is, if I don't just switch the iPhone to Verizon anyway - another attempt to control my choices that Jobs can blow me for.
When Apple gets a hot actress to voice a perfect guide for how to live your life including martial arts training, then I'll be *all over* that iPad.
Oh yeah - no phone or teleconferencing.
iPad fail, Diamond Age win.
Exactly right. The Justice system isn't really about justice - it's a giant machine that pursues law enforcement and is fed with convictions. It's a good thing we have it, and we need it, but we need to be aware of it's limitations.
3 years in prison and ten years listed as a sex offender?? ffs. This guy needs a new lawyer. Either that, or I honestly wonder if he actually is guilty of something worse.
There's no doubt it sucks, and recreating the data as the scientists used it will be inconvenient. I'm just pointing out that the data isn't gone forever.
And other effects we are apparently seeing faster. Still doesn't mean trying to restrict pollution makes Al Gore into Pollution Pot.
Link to citation? 'Cause otherwise I might as well say some guy said the Ozone Layer shrank because I hit puberty and am so freaking awesome.
Actually the raw data has not been destroyed. Only these specific scientists' copies of it. The raw data still exists, at the various meterological services which originally recorded the data.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030
Just because Federal-funded research **may** be influenced by Federal $, does NOT mean that corporate-funded research is clean. If anything, Federal-funded research is more likely to be clean IF ONLY because the Federal government is ultimately beholden to the voters, whereas companies are only beholden to their stockholders, if at all.
What would you accept as proof?
To really be fair in comparing corporate-funded climate science vs. US gov't-funded climate science, you should include all US oil companies and not just Exxon.
Suggesting it might be better, based on scientific evidence, if industries didn't pollute in certain ways is NOT going "Pol Pot".
Let me refresh your memory:
Climate scientists suggest that if we reduce the amount of sulfates, we'll have less acid rain. Sulfates reduced; the amount of acid rain shrinks.
Climate scientists suggest that aerosols are hurting the ozone layer, and point to an actual growing hole in the ozone layer. We reduce aerosols, the hole in the ozone layer shrinks.
I'm not at all suggesting climate scientists are infallible - they should be questioned like anyone else.
But to suggest that reasonable restrictions on companies that produce pollution is "going Pol Pot?" FFS.
Maybe you're right, in a way - Midwesterners may tend not to believe pollution can damage the environment, if they live somewhere that's untouched by industrial waste. If that's the case, they should go live in New Jersey for a while.
The fact that be doesn't even answer, implies that he at least doesn't have a problem with girls being raped in murdered. Or little boys. Or alien goatsucking fiends. Or alien goatsucking fiends being wrongly imprisoned for rape and murder that could just as easily have been committed by Glenn Beck. Now of course I'm not saying that he did. But his silence on this important topic **and** alien goatsucking fiends...isn't that interesting? I'm just say that it's interesting, you know? (I can has cable show now?)
Seriously, how many of you have ever have a gun or knife held on you? With no chance of police help? How much do you think that would screw with your ability to soak up knowledge?
And public schools are so far from equal in terms of resources its shocking. I grew up in NJ. In my wealthy home town, the high school had a frickin' robot-operated lathe - while not 1 hour's drive away, the high school in Newark didn't have enough **Chairs**.
My point: the differences between wealthy students and stone broke students aren't due to "culture" - unless you expand culture to include the relative safety of the schools AND the amount of resources they get.
Those wealthy who benefit bailouts, corporate tax breaks, and other platinum welfare are exactly the same. They just don't call themselves "collectivists, socialists or communists" - but they are just fine with unearned benefits from the taxpayer's pockets, as long as they or their company get them.
I am neither poor nor communist, socialist or collectivist. I just try to have a clear eye about the realities of our system and culture. Welfare for the rich, tough love for the masses.
I think the public understands core services just fine. They just consider "social services" which feed kids and families and support the disadvantaged to be a core service.
I'm recalling this from the late 90's. It was a virus that was supposed to make it impossible for office workers to use their computers from 6 AM to 10 AM, and encourage them to listen to Howard Stern instead.
It's fine to love *nix for it's many values, but most people don't need them and the learning curve is steep. Most people just need something they're familiar with to get them through their day.
a) I am not second guessing anyone's choices. You are projecting something onto me that is coming from you.
b) when something that's vital becomes scarce, the fact that it's cost increases doesn't solve the problem.
Imagine a long-expected famine comes, and there isn't enough wheat to go around. The price of bread costs $1000 a loaf. Does that solve the problem? No. People will starve to death - or switch to other foods if they can.
But if people wait until they *have to* have other forms of food to grow, process, ship, buy and then eat - they will starve to death or suffer greatly until those forms of food are available. WHich is a completely unnecessary amount of suffering, if instead they had just planned ahead for the expected and predicted famine.
And if the famine never came, no problem - they have a range of foods other than wheat.
Do you see?
If you're smart, you plan ahead for crises that are clearly coming. You don't do nothing and hope that the 'Free Market' will solve it. That's like hoping Zeus will solve it.
Now you can intentionally use the Free Market to solve it - by providing incentives.
Also, why would anyone in the coal or oil industry want to pretend there's plenty when there's actually a shortage?
So they can keep making money for the next quarter, year, or 20 years. Because that's all executives are hired to care about. And they can make far more money if 100% of US energy needs are switched to coal - as opposed to if even 80% are switched to coal and 20% is switched to renewable sources.
You can see that, right?
Still waiting for that "there's enough coal for hundreds of years" citation, by the way.
So please find a source that is NOT from an oil or coal company, saying that if we switch to coal or oil, it will last for hundreds of years.
To get a picture of our current reality, you may also want to examine this chart: http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/earth/energy-supply.php
2. You assume that we will better be able to research alternative fuels when fossil fuels become too hard to retrieve therefore expensive. Not true. This will be a far harder time to begin the research and infrastructure necessary.
3. You are really collapsing this idea of researching alternative fuels with "tyranny". They have nothing to do with each other.
Giving tax breaks and funding research is not tyranny and does not crush people - AND is not against the "Free Market" either.
The problem is in getting energy from them cheaply enough, that it replaces the current cost of fossil fuels. Whether or not that's feasible is an engineering challenge - it's not magic beans!
Please.
And why wouldn't we use cheap energy? ***Because, among many other reasons, fossil fuels are finite and not renewable. So it won't be cheap when we run out of it.***
And our population and thus energy needs are ****increasing**** even as our supply is decreasing. So soon we are going to be hit with a double whammy - decreasing amounts of fuel when we need more fuel than ever.
You can see the basic facts of that situation, right?
That's why I would think it's smart to tray and switch off of fossil fuels for a lot of reasons, rather than wait to see if we survive - when there's already a lot of problems coming our way. Whether or not you accept the current scientific consensus on Global warming, that's really only one of several problems that come from pretending that fossil fuels will last forever. Coal is a band-aid we may need to tide us over - but it's gonna run out too.
That's a subject that reasonable people may differ on. The one thing that renewable forms of energy have over coal and even nuclear, is that the fuel is limited *and* leaves behind dangerous waste products. Coal is also dangerously polluting in it's actual usage - which is a concern not only for Global Warming, but for general human health.
So renewable forms of energy also have this benefit: once set up, they use no fuel. All the cost is in the development, and then the maintenance; none is the fuel usage.
Me, I'm for whatever works. But it makes logical sense to me that if you can build a coal-burning power plant and a plant that generates electricity from ocean wave motion for about the same amount of materials, and the ocean wave motion might require more R & D up front but, once done, has zero fuel costs and zero pollution, that is greater progress than the coal plant - because savings will only increase over time.
Um, I read his above post twice, and I didn't read one single insult.