The funny thing about all of this is that Iran is just a place name to most people in the U.S. and about as real as Neverland or Hy-Brasil. They have a concept of Iran, but that's about it. If you're Iranian, you don't exist, in their heads, and so what happens to you *doesn't matter*.
Dammit, I don't want one program that does everything. I have to imagine how awesome Opera Browser would be if they weren't also focused on a mail client. And vice versa.
We are quickly finding ourselves in a society where we lack an absolute morality authority. Therefore what is immoral for you may or may not be immoral to others. In other words, we are reaping the fruits of a society where all ideas are given equal worth. Where we are not to condemn someone because what they do is right from their point of view.
Well, depending on who you ask, the only absolute moral authority is some made-up white guy with a beard (hint: not Santa Claus). We could probably stand with better education on matters of right and wrong (without invoking the beard) but this would require delving into classical literature for a background, and actual thinking.
Both of these things are non-testable and non-monetizable, which is anathema to the people in charge of education ATM.
Yes, I'm a cynic. Fortunately, I don't have access to heavy weaponry.
Apple could have done this with the Mac store, and didn't. They could have allowed non-app store installs like Android, and didn't. The only reason not to do repositories or allow non-walled garden applications is greed. Sounds like Windows 8 is going the walled garden route as well, and this is the problem. It becomes more acceptable, and has to get pretty crippled compared to the competition (AOL) before the general public starts to care.
The only other reason is to attempt to provide consistency across the platform in look, feel, and provisioning. Most users can't distinguish between an issue with an installed program and the platform. The benefit to Apple's approach is that it minimizes even the possibility of confusion, now and into the future.
Their thought pattern seems to be: if people want to mess around with a platform, let them go invent their own.
And I don't know that I have a huge issue with that.
Seriously, if I'm a software company, how do I tell the difference between 1) a prominent security researcher 2) a garden-variety hacker
Consider that the incoming notification will probably go to one of several public addresses, but probably to support, feedback, publicity or bugs. Now, do each of those people need to be trained to recognize certain names (which leads us back to original question). Or do they need to be trained to recognize a crank letter from a real letter (no objective means of doing so). Or possibly distinguish technical facts from technical blathering (not at all realistic)?
It's just not realistic that a software company can be on top of every possible vulnerability at all times, and yet this is what it seems all of you expect. There are just too many clever people with time on their hands and a single-focus mentality to be able to combat all of things they might come up with.
The main worry seems to be that the Anti-Virus vendors will be put out of business because they will no longer be necessary. As long as Microsoft allows the user to supplant Microsoft's AV with a third-party AV, there shouldn't be any worry.
However, I'm guessing that the AV vendors also believe that Microsoft should somehow be responsible for keeping them in business, which is ridiculous.
There is not one common standard for "defamation". An atheist might say that it is impossible to "defame" a religion, since they're all made up anyway. A hard-line Christian or Muslim might conclude that any criticism whatsoever was defamation. Additionally, the freedom of speech in member countries is not synchronized in the least. Consider that in the UK, a newspaper can be ordered to not publish certain articles about individuals, which is practically inconceivable in the US. German courts have ruled that the names of criminals cannot be published alongside their crimes, regardless of the fact that they actually committed such crimes (not "may have committed", but "actually did commit").
Where does it stop? Once we allow the UN the toehold in determining what is acceptable speech, where is the line that cannot be crossed?
That they are using the same method of "earning" a domain name makes me about as uncomfortable as I am with bitcoin. Additionally, it will become near impossible to purchase a domain name in the future, as the difficulty in mining namecoins rises.
I feel like their project is missing the point - the issue is censorship and bypassing it, rather than purchasing names.
If Google would actually get around to releasing some details on Dart, rather than just trying to shoot down an established language, then maybe this could be a rational discussion.
I actually like to learn *the game* before I do any multi-player, but usually by the time I'm done with single-player, I've figured out how bad the game really is in terms of mechanics and control. After that, it's just not worth the extra effort of putting up with other people.
It's pretty cynical of LinkedIn to somehow suggest that an ad is more useful to *me* because it has my friend's face in it. That's actually somewhat deceptive, given that a profile pic will be use if the person is following a company, which doesn't necessarily mean endorsing.
It definitely helps the advertiser, since they can possibly increase sales off this implied endorsement, but it's otherwise disingenuous.
I have an Android phone. I've looked at many of the other Android phones (the ones I don't have).
1. I'm just not impressed. Usability is nowhere near what it is on the Apple phones. 2. Too much fragmentation and no end of that in sight. Every manufacturer has a different version of the OS that's been vendorized. Sorry, not interested in that - I'll handle personalization myself. 3. Upgrading is a crapshoot w/o buying a new phone. I'm currently stuck with 2.2 and no way to upgrade past that w/o Jailbreaking - which I'm not particularly interested in.
Yeah, Apple is not perfect. But they are good enough and it's a brand I trust not to screw me over too badly (that's about as good as it gets these days, unfortunately).
I might buy an iPhone 5, I might not. But right now, I'm leaning toward it.
Because Mozilla is looking at all the mindshare being stolen by Chrome and thinking: Damn! We need to be like them! They're being all quick and innovative and we're not!
Beyond that, I think they've just lost their fucking marbles.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever been to Houston? A cruise missile would improve the place.
The funny thing about all of this is that Iran is just a place name to most people in the U.S. and about as real as Neverland or Hy-Brasil. They have a concept of Iran, but that's about it. If you're Iranian, you don't exist, in their heads, and so what happens to you *doesn't matter*.
Dammit, I don't want one program that does everything. I have to imagine how awesome Opera Browser would be if they weren't also focused on a mail client. And vice versa.
We are quickly finding ourselves in a society where we lack an absolute morality authority. Therefore what is immoral for you may or may not be immoral to others. In other words, we are reaping the fruits of a society where all ideas are given equal worth. Where we are not to condemn someone because what they do is right from their point of view.
Well, depending on who you ask, the only absolute moral authority is some made-up white guy with a beard (hint: not Santa Claus). We could probably stand with better education on matters of right and wrong (without invoking the beard) but this would require delving into classical literature for a background, and actual thinking.
Both of these things are non-testable and non-monetizable, which is anathema to the people in charge of education ATM.
Yes, I'm a cynic. Fortunately, I don't have access to heavy weaponry.
Apple could have done this with the Mac store, and didn't. They could have allowed non-app store installs like Android, and didn't. The only reason not to do repositories or allow non-walled garden applications is greed. Sounds like Windows 8 is going the walled garden route as well, and this is the problem. It becomes more acceptable, and has to get pretty crippled compared to the competition (AOL) before the general public starts to care.
The only other reason is to attempt to provide consistency across the platform in look, feel, and provisioning. Most users can't distinguish between an issue with an installed program and the platform. The benefit to Apple's approach is that it minimizes even the possibility of confusion, now and into the future.
Their thought pattern seems to be: if people want to mess around with a platform, let them go invent their own.
And I don't know that I have a huge issue with that.
Don't fuck with what ain't yours.
Religion and non-interference are mutually exclusive.
Seriously, if I'm a software company, how do I tell the difference between
1) a prominent security researcher
2) a garden-variety hacker
Consider that the incoming notification will probably go to one of several public addresses, but probably to support, feedback, publicity or bugs. Now, do each of those people need to be trained to recognize certain names (which leads us back to original question). Or do they need to be trained to recognize a crank letter from a real letter (no objective means of doing so). Or possibly distinguish technical facts from technical blathering (not at all realistic)?
It's just not realistic that a software company can be on top of every possible vulnerability at all times, and yet this is what it seems all of you expect. There are just too many clever people with time on their hands and a single-focus mentality to be able to combat all of things they might come up with.
The main worry seems to be that the Anti-Virus vendors will be put out of business because they will no longer be necessary. As long as Microsoft allows the user to supplant Microsoft's AV with a third-party AV, there shouldn't be any worry.
However, I'm guessing that the AV vendors also believe that Microsoft should somehow be responsible for keeping them in business, which is ridiculous.
or a political statement, really.
As a game where there is no win condition, it just sucks.
As a political statement, it's kind of catchy, but it's difficult to take PETA seriously anymore.
If they win, it may damage their Twitter reputation more than just leaving it alone.
17,000 followers can spam a Twitter account pretty heavily.
Yes, the UN generally does an OK job, except for that bit where they want to censor speech that makes other parties feel bad.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/01/14/2009-01-14_unacceptable_censorship_the_united_natio.html
There is not one common standard for "defamation". An atheist might say that it is impossible to "defame" a religion, since they're all made up anyway. A hard-line Christian or Muslim might conclude that any criticism whatsoever was defamation. Additionally, the freedom of speech in member countries is not synchronized in the least. Consider that in the UK, a newspaper can be ordered to not publish certain articles about individuals, which is practically inconceivable in the US. German courts have ruled that the names of criminals cannot be published alongside their crimes, regardless of the fact that they actually committed such crimes (not "may have committed", but "actually did commit").
Where does it stop? Once we allow the UN the toehold in determining what is acceptable speech, where is the line that cannot be crossed?
That they are using the same method of "earning" a domain name makes me about as uncomfortable as I am with bitcoin. Additionally, it will become near impossible to purchase a domain name in the future, as the difficulty in mining namecoins rises.
I feel like their project is missing the point - the issue is censorship and bypassing it, rather than purchasing names.
It's not always lose-win or lose-lose.
These days, it's pretty much a total loss for privacy.
It is biologically impossible for you to be a Vulcan, as they do not exist, so your argument is invalid.
And demonstrably stupid.
QED.
If Google would actually get around to releasing some details on Dart, rather than just trying to shoot down an established language, then maybe this could be a rational discussion.
I'd be more worried about someone using to crack open systems for credit cards and bank account info, personally.
That's a lot of executin'. I'm gonna need some coffee to work up to that.
I actually like to learn *the game* before I do any multi-player, but usually by the time I'm done with single-player, I've figured out how bad the game really is in terms of mechanics and control. After that, it's just not worth the extra effort of putting up with other people.
It's pretty cynical of LinkedIn to somehow suggest that an ad is more useful to *me* because it has my friend's face in it. That's actually somewhat deceptive, given that a profile pic will be use if the person is following a company, which doesn't necessarily mean endorsing.
It definitely helps the advertiser, since they can possibly increase sales off this implied endorsement, but it's otherwise disingenuous.
OK, good point. And where did all those weapons and that training wind up?
With their kids.
Maybe the better takeaway is not to go fucking around where we ain't got no business fucking around.
Which is all of the world outside our own borders.
I have an Android phone. I've looked at many of the other Android phones (the ones I don't have).
1. I'm just not impressed. Usability is nowhere near what it is on the Apple phones.
2. Too much fragmentation and no end of that in sight. Every manufacturer has a different version of the OS that's been vendorized. Sorry, not interested in that - I'll handle personalization myself.
3. Upgrading is a crapshoot w/o buying a new phone. I'm currently stuck with 2.2 and no way to upgrade past that w/o Jailbreaking - which I'm not particularly interested in.
Yeah, Apple is not perfect. But they are good enough and it's a brand I trust not to screw me over too badly (that's about as good as it gets these days, unfortunately).
I might buy an iPhone 5, I might not. But right now, I'm leaning toward it.
Because Mozilla is looking at all the mindshare being stolen by Chrome and thinking: Damn! We need to be like them! They're being all quick and innovative and we're not!
Beyond that, I think they've just lost their fucking marbles.
Given that some extensions are tied to FF4, I can't upgrade until those extensions are upgraded.
You know, kind of the same way I can't upgrade IE w/o breaking certain things.
Microsoft doesn't own it yet. This is all Skype.