Saying "hurrah free speech for everyone" only invites the nutjobs to spread their poison, and no-one will do anything because it'd be restricting their speech.
And that would work a lot better. Do nothing - they speak, and make idiots of themselves, people ignore them.
Suppress their speech, then they can play the victim card, become martyrs, validate conspiracy theories. Things go downhill quickly as the nutters join the squirrel parade.
I think it is high time we stop trying to think our values apply to all people and allow them the freedoms required to run their own country.
What's the point of having a value if it doesn't apply to everybody? That makes it meaningless.
To blindly recommend striping a law off the books for all countries (or the likes) when the applicable country has an entirely different method of government and citing that as a reference point is purely illogical and, I may be mistaken here, the only reason I can think of for someone doing so was so that they could get their post in early and see whatever benefits they felt.
Which is why the poster you are responding to said to do it as an example to countries like Malaysia. He didn't say to force Malaysia to remove the laws, just to lead by example.
We *have* sedition laws (in THIS particular government style) to curtail specific behaviors. Can those laws be expanded to really screw us? Of course. That doesn't mean that they are bad.
No, but the fact that such laws are inherently bad, makes them bad. What possible reason is there for having them?
Either way this is a system of government and a way of thinking for a culture that is not the same as we have here in the west. They don't equate.
Which is why the poster you are responding to said that the west should remove these laws as an example. Or do you have a fundamental problem with reading comprehension?
There must be something wrong with your product if sales can just drop off so suddenly for no real reason. How can you blame this on an economic crisis? If people really need your software to do business, then they will buy it. Perhaps that software wasn't really necessary in the first place, if a small market downturn has such an extreme effect?
Are you against bicycle helmets because they don't do anything to stop broken ribs? Are you against crumple zones because they don't prevent fire?
Nope. I'd just like know what this does at all to prevent anything. This appears to have 0% effectiveness, so what's the point? All the other examples you cite at least have some utility.
I don't see how limiting speed to 80 is very useful at all. That's already extremely fast. For you metric folk:
80 miles per hour = 128.74752 kilometers per hour
Not only that, but some of the most dangerous driving happens in much slower speed zones, for example residential areas, or around schools. How is this going to stop drivers from ploughing over children at 40 mph?
I would be much more interested in a 4GB disk that actually had a change of lasting >10 years in a normal environment (for me..? room temp, light sealed bag).
Try gold-plated optical discs. They hold up really well.
19 year olds are from "Generation X"?? WTF? 19 year olds are Generation Y, or the "Global Teens" as the book calls them.
And Generation X is usually characterized as having grown up too fast, being too educated, having blame and responsibility heaped upon them, and getting little opportunity in return. Thus the cynicism. Oh, and Generation X is well known for postponing child-rearing to their older years.
Never? I beg to differ. I was an early adopter of CD-R technology, and it was an excellent financial decision, because back then nobody had CD-Rs, but people wanted to produce their own Audio CDs and CD-ROMs. So, I could charge significant amounts of money for authoring and burning discs. A service that is now essentially worthless because anybody can do it. I also had a similar experience with DVD-R. I could sell clients their videos on DVD, rather than VHS. DVD players were becoming common, but the burners and authoring software were expensive and not common. So it worked as a competitive advantage, brining in more money and impressing clients.
If you have any financial stake in media production, it almost always works out better to be an early adopter than to be late to the game.
We see more and more people who are interested in tinkering with their systems, develop small apps and do all kinds of weird stuff to the OS.
Really? What is your source of data for that one? In my experience, it's the exact opposite. When I started in computing, everybody had to be a hacker to some extent. These days, far fewer people are interested, the computer is a productivity tool, not something to hack with. And especially not to "do all kinds of weird stuff to the OS." How many people do you really think want to do that? and why do you want your OS doing weird things? I think that's the exact opposite of what people want, power users or newbies. Most people expect predictability from their systems, not weirdness.
Weird stuff was what we did in the C64/Amiga demo scene. When just seeing a computer do some graphics or sound was a novelty in itself. You don't see much of that any more.
Not people who just want their web browser to work and write letters with the word processor and little else.
Who exactly are these mythical people who only want to do that with a computer?
Even my grandmother expects to do more with her computer, and she's 90 years old. Don't you realize that just about everybody has digital cameras, digital music players and digital video cameras these days? Your comment is like saying that there's still a lot of people who just want to buy a typewriter.
Even if such people existed, do you think they'd be the ones seeking out an ultra-portable notebook computer that's in short supply?
You are totally wrong. Consumers don't have any idea about NDA's or the lack of them.
Isn't that exactly what I said? It seems you agree with me, but then say "I'm totally wrong".
This is about developers. And developers have all the choice in the world.
Of course they do, but developers alone don't determine the success of a platform.
Add to this the fact that it's another platform you need to dedicate your time to learning and learning well if you're going to make good software. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a business perspective.
And given that the iPhone SDK is very easy to learn, and makes a lot of money for developers, then why would it be bad business sense to develop for the platform? iPhone developers are making out with bucketloads of money for very little effort.
Oh, and my purpose in building applications of any kind is neither fun nor money, but building good tools. Which incidentally is fun and makes me a lot of money.
Isn't building good tools a version of "fun"? Regardless, those who don't have any kind of noble goals like "good tools" can still make a fortune on the iPhone regardless of Apple's heavy-handed tactics - so why would they pass up the option? The risk/reward ratio is very low.
I believe you mentioned consoles in an earlier post. This is a good example of what I'm saying. Developers follow the consumer, not the other way around. For example, Sony has many onerous requirements to develop for the PS2/PS3, yet developers flock to the platform, because they know that consumers are there waiting to buy their products.
Why the hell would anybody bother with those privacy invasive add spweing services, when they can simply plug in and run the own easy to configure consumer grade appliance server, running their own mail, web, media and file servers.
For the same reason that people use Flickr, rather than hosting their own photo galleries, they use Facebook instead of using USENET or their own social-networking application. The reason they use gmail or hotmail instead of their own mail server.
This doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with consumers and what they want. Everything you said about consumers and the market is irrelevant, be it true or false. This has to do with developers, who have the choice to support a platform or not. It's just like game consoles.
No, it's not really about developers at all. Otherwise, how was the iPhone successful, even when there was no third-party software available? I'm pretty sure it would still be going strong today if they had never opened it up to third-party developers.
Consumers matter, because they are the ones who buy the product, and that is how you make money, by selling products (although I would have thought that was obvious). Consumers don't really care about what the developers think.
Also, developers don't have as much choice as you might think. Some may object on ethical/moral grounds, and not participate. But most will, because they will go where the money is. Just look at Windows. Plenty of people would rather be developing for some other system than Windows - but they bite their tongue and release software for Windows, because that's where a lot of the consumer market is at.
Individual developers may take a "principled stance" - but when it comes to anything larger than that, like small companies, they are not going to pass up the opportunity to make easy money from the iPhone.
Personally, I've already started investigating Android, but I'm not wasting my time with the iPhone, because Apple as a business entity is a control-freak of draconian proportions who simply can't be trusted.
So, what's your purpose in wanting to develop phone applications? Is it just for fun, or is it to make money?
What's the point of writing another OS to do this? Are they saying that Windows isn't good enough to perform these "cloud" functions? If so, then why don't they rewrite Windows so it is good enough?
Or is it just a part of their trend of having dozens of versions of each OS, like "Vista: people with small hands and lactose intolerance Edition"?
The only people in my department who actually call tech support are telecommunications
??? "Telecommunications" aren't people, but a combination of technologies and techniques used to facilitate communication between people. Like your phone or modem. Wait, are your modems spontaneously calling for tech support?
Slashdot Mirror
Saying "hurrah free speech for everyone" only invites the nutjobs to spread their poison, and no-one will do anything because it'd be restricting their speech.
And that would work a lot better. Do nothing - they speak, and make idiots of themselves, people ignore them.
Suppress their speech, then they can play the victim card, become martyrs, validate conspiracy theories. Things go downhill quickly as the nutters join the squirrel parade.
I think it is high time we stop trying to think our values apply to all people and allow them the freedoms required to run their own country.
What's the point of having a value if it doesn't apply to everybody? That makes it meaningless.
To blindly recommend striping a law off the books for all countries (or the likes) when the applicable country has an entirely different method of government and citing that as a reference point is purely illogical and, I may be mistaken here, the only reason I can think of for someone doing so was so that they could get their post in early and see whatever benefits they felt.
Which is why the poster you are responding to said to do it as an example to countries like Malaysia. He didn't say to force Malaysia to remove the laws, just to lead by example.
We *have* sedition laws (in THIS particular government style) to curtail specific behaviors. Can those laws be expanded to really screw us? Of course. That doesn't mean that they are bad.
No, but the fact that such laws are inherently bad, makes them bad. What possible reason is there for having them?
Either way this is a system of government and a way of thinking for a culture that is not the same as we have here in the west. They don't equate.
Which is why the poster you are responding to said that the west should remove these laws as an example. Or do you have a fundamental problem with reading comprehension?
... Enterprise software just sucks?
There must be something wrong with your product if sales can just drop off so suddenly for no real reason. How can you blame this on an economic crisis? If people really need your software to do business, then they will buy it. Perhaps that software wasn't really necessary in the first place, if a small market downturn has such an extreme effect?
Seriously, traditional societies recognize adulthood at, like 13.
Seriously, traditional societies were totally fucked up. I'm not sure why we should be using them as role models.
Overtaking a truck would be dangerous and irritating with such a limiter.
If you had the limiter installed, why would you even be trying to overtake a truck at those kinds of speeds?
Are you against bicycle helmets because they don't do anything to stop broken ribs? Are you against crumple zones because they don't prevent fire?
Nope. I'd just like know what this does at all to prevent anything. This appears to have 0% effectiveness, so what's the point? All the other examples you cite at least have some utility.
The OP is an idiot. These are electronic governors and as such it's looking at top speed, and not acceleration.
That's exactly what the OP said, so how is he an idiot? I think you might be somewhat stupid for lacking reading comprehension.
Anyway - how quickly do you think a Ford Focus is going to accelerate from 80mph? I'd say pretty damn slowly.
I don't see how limiting speed to 80 is very useful at all. That's already extremely fast. For you metric folk:
80 miles per hour = 128.74752 kilometers per hour
Not only that, but some of the most dangerous driving happens in much slower speed zones, for example residential areas, or around schools. How is this going to stop drivers from ploughing over children at 40 mph?
So, given the distances involved, that makes it, like, next week?
I would be much more interested in a 4GB disk that actually had a change of lasting >10 years in a normal environment (for me..? room temp, light sealed bag).
Try gold-plated optical discs. They hold up really well.
Hey, they can adopt the slashdot tagging system for TV! Oh wait, you said useful metadata. My bad.
19 year olds are from "Generation X"?? WTF? 19 year olds are Generation Y, or the "Global Teens" as the book calls them.
And Generation X is usually characterized as having grown up too fast, being too educated, having blame and responsibility heaped upon them, and getting little opportunity in return. Thus the cynicism. Oh, and Generation X is well known for postponing child-rearing to their older years.
Never? I beg to differ. I was an early adopter of CD-R technology, and it was an excellent financial decision, because back then nobody had CD-Rs, but people wanted to produce their own Audio CDs and CD-ROMs. So, I could charge significant amounts of money for authoring and burning discs. A service that is now essentially worthless because anybody can do it. I also had a similar experience with DVD-R. I could sell clients their videos on DVD, rather than VHS. DVD players were becoming common, but the burners and authoring software were expensive and not common. So it worked as a competitive advantage, brining in more money and impressing clients.
If you have any financial stake in media production, it almost always works out better to be an early adopter than to be late to the game.
We see more and more people who are interested in tinkering with their systems, develop small apps and do all kinds of weird stuff to the OS.
Really? What is your source of data for that one? In my experience, it's the exact opposite. When I started in computing, everybody had to be a hacker to some extent. These days, far fewer people are interested, the computer is a productivity tool, not something to hack with. And especially not to "do all kinds of weird stuff to the OS." How many people do you really think want to do that? and why do you want your OS doing weird things? I think that's the exact opposite of what people want, power users or newbies. Most people expect predictability from their systems, not weirdness.
Weird stuff was what we did in the C64/Amiga demo scene. When just seeing a computer do some graphics or sound was a novelty in itself. You don't see much of that any more.
The fonts in Windows have been optimized at the per-pixel level to match up with LCD monitors.
So, why do they look so goddamned awful, then?
Not people who just want their web browser to work and write letters with the word processor and little else.
Who exactly are these mythical people who only want to do that with a computer?
Even my grandmother expects to do more with her computer, and she's 90 years old. Don't you realize that just about everybody has digital cameras, digital music players and digital video cameras these days? Your comment is like saying that there's still a lot of people who just want to buy a typewriter.
Even if such people existed, do you think they'd be the ones seeking out an ultra-portable notebook computer that's in short supply?
Who the fuck is Steve Fossett, and why should we care?
You are totally wrong. Consumers don't have any idea about NDA's or the lack of them.
Isn't that exactly what I said? It seems you agree with me, but then say "I'm totally wrong".
This is about developers. And developers have all the choice in the world.
Of course they do, but developers alone don't determine the success of a platform.
Add to this the fact that it's another platform you need to dedicate your time to learning and learning well if you're going to make good software. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a business perspective.
And given that the iPhone SDK is very easy to learn, and makes a lot of money for developers, then why would it be bad business sense to develop for the platform? iPhone developers are making out with bucketloads of money for very little effort.
Oh, and my purpose in building applications of any kind is neither fun nor money, but building good tools. Which incidentally is fun and makes me a lot of money.
Isn't building good tools a version of "fun"? Regardless, those who don't have any kind of noble goals like "good tools" can still make a fortune on the iPhone regardless of Apple's heavy-handed tactics - so why would they pass up the option? The risk/reward ratio is very low.
I believe you mentioned consoles in an earlier post. This is a good example of what I'm saying. Developers follow the consumer, not the other way around. For example, Sony has many onerous requirements to develop for the PS2/PS3, yet developers flock to the platform, because they know that consumers are there waiting to buy their products.
Why the hell would anybody bother with those privacy invasive add spweing services, when they can simply plug in and run the own easy to configure consumer grade appliance server, running their own mail, web, media and file servers.
For the same reason that people use Flickr, rather than hosting their own photo galleries, they use Facebook instead of using USENET or their own social-networking application. The reason they use gmail or hotmail instead of their own mail server.
This doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with consumers and what they want. Everything you said about consumers and the market is irrelevant, be it true or false. This has to do with developers, who have the choice to support a platform or not. It's just like game consoles.
No, it's not really about developers at all. Otherwise, how was the iPhone successful, even when there was no third-party software available? I'm pretty sure it would still be going strong today if they had never opened it up to third-party developers.
Consumers matter, because they are the ones who buy the product, and that is how you make money, by selling products (although I would have thought that was obvious). Consumers don't really care about what the developers think.
Also, developers don't have as much choice as you might think. Some may object on ethical/moral grounds, and not participate. But most will, because they will go where the money is. Just look at Windows. Plenty of people would rather be developing for some other system than Windows - but they bite their tongue and release software for Windows, because that's where a lot of the consumer market is at.
Individual developers may take a "principled stance" - but when it comes to anything larger than that, like small companies, they are not going to pass up the opportunity to make easy money from the iPhone.
Personally, I've already started investigating Android, but I'm not wasting my time with the iPhone, because Apple as a business entity is a control-freak of draconian proportions who simply can't be trusted.
So, what's your purpose in wanting to develop phone applications? Is it just for fun, or is it to make money?
What's the point of writing another OS to do this? Are they saying that Windows isn't good enough to perform these "cloud" functions? If so, then why don't they rewrite Windows so it is good enough?
Or is it just a part of their trend of having dozens of versions of each OS, like "Vista: people with small hands and lactose intolerance Edition"?
Ahhhh, so she was the 2001 Foxy Boxing champion!
Ahhhh... when my real name and company dominated the first few pages of Google results - without spending any money!
but in this day and age, not being a white straight male is more likely to help you than hurt you.
You really think so? Got any evidence to support that assertion?
The only people in my department who actually call tech support are telecommunications
??? "Telecommunications" aren't people, but a combination of technologies and techniques used to facilitate communication between people. Like your phone or modem. Wait, are your modems spontaneously calling for tech support?