I agree, and I'm pretty unhappy about the whole dropping Synaptic part. However, as a dual enterprise/home user, with LTS, I have assurance per LTS that those features will be supported for long enough that I don't have to worry about surprises. There are changes, but I have a chance to say yes or no to them.
I'm personally in favor of mesh, but I'll say this... no, I don't want yet another dish on the side of my house. This could have uses, though, thinking nautical.
Ubuntu is for home and business, because they offer LTS. They do this, and I am happy to wave their banner to home users and at my work where Ubuntu is replacing old XP machines, rather than Windows 7. But I don't EVER use Firefox. It's too slow, and nobody wants to use it anyways. I use Chromium. It's quick and stable.
Firefox fell out of favor with me over a year ago. It's bloated and their add-on system hasn't evolved fast enough. And without LTS, I won't install it at work.
And here's what they DON'T get (feel free to flame me, I was a FF fanboy once too). If I install something other than IE at work, users here are apt to use the same at home. If I don't install Firefox, they probably won't install it. And if they do run it and ask why we don't run it, my answer is simple, "It's crap."
Go ahead, Mozilla, flip the bird to sys/net admins. We can flip the bird right back and drain the core of your installs to 0. I can't believe you'd say what you did to a major administrator like you did. If you are trying to adopt the Apple snotty attitude, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.
Who the hell do you think actually runs most of your installs? Schools, businesses, and even government. Are you so high on your horse that you think you are the only good browser out there now? IE doesn't suck as bad, Chrome is fast as hell, and Opera has always been solid. As you continue to lose market share, I want to make a serious suggestion. Fire some of your staff. That is the fresh start you need.
Ubuntu at least knows who butters its bread. It's the institutions that are pushing the numbers up. Mozilla doesn't have a clue.
I figured I'd give you a longer answer, but first... Enhance your calm. (hehe, stuck on Demolition Man lines today). You kinda sound angry, "Rarrr, you angered the great iPad with your spewing, so I shall bold you!"
Anyways...
Not a single phone requires a cellular plan either. I can buy any model on eBay brand new. But does that change the dynamic?
What person would get a 3G device without a plan in the US? Pre-paid data isn't popular for a reason. Wifi-only devices releases late, and none so far have caught my fancy, the Galaxy 10.1 may change that, but I still won't be buying one. If we ditch the contract my "around $700" goes much higher for a decent device (of which, the entry models are not decent).
The real question is why a something separate. Jeff Jarvis has this same complaint on Twit.tv, and I'm in full agreement with him. Rather than get a $5 a month "Add-a-line", they want to hit people up for a full data plan. Now obviously, if I purchase it for someone else, yeah, huge data usage. But if I buy it for myself, why should I even consider paying more? It's not like I can really use both my phone data and my tablet data at the same time? (I actually can think of exceptions, but they are almost all phone-low, tablet-high data, ie - phone for navigation in car, tablet watching Netflix.)
You're commenting like I don't understand what a tablet is for. I do know what it is for very well. But the price is too high, the quality (value, not craftsmanship) is too low (it's a large phone), and it's very immature.
Now, the first $20,000 plasma screen TVs, I would say the same, but even many generations after that, I still say the same. Only recently has the price, quality (value), and maturity come to really be worth the purchase price. And by jumping in late, I'm happy to watch TV on a 52" HD with 3D capability (which I refuse to use, because that IS very immature and I'm not spending $900 for two f#$%ing pairs of glasses and a controller box add-on) for a tiny fraction of the cost of even a modest LCD just 4 years ago.
Give tables (and phones) 5 more years to mature, and then I may change my gap device. The netbook, on the other hand, is just a small laptop, and I don't expect it to really mature further. When tablets can match a netbook on price they'll probably just merge anyways (meaning, a touch screen netbook with no keyboard).
It's an "interesting start". But nobody, not even Apple, has really convinced me. I went to check out the iPad 2. The ads make it sound like Jesus himself crapped his robes when he saw it. I picked it up, played with the interface for a minute, spun through some apps. I put the device back down after roughly 30 seconds, unimpressed. Was not a big improvement over the iPhone 3G I'd had, and actually less impressive than my Droid X. The only advantage was screen size, and nothing more. Not worth my going to Amazon and ordering a new one all decked out for nearly $1000 after shipping and taxes (far above my $700 mark). I'm sorry, but for $1000, it sucks. It sucks big rhino balls, at least, from my point of view in my situation. Mileage may vary.
And, I will admit, Apple has done the best so far. It's not that Apple sucks, it's that we made a phone with a giant screen, and all we really know how to do with it so far is watch video. If that's as good as it gets, sorry, not interested. Then again, the first touch screen phones didn't impress me either, as I had a phone with a trackball already, and touch screen was not "oh, groovy, far out" tech for me. I already worked with touch screens at work. Didn't really care. They had to get a lot better, and I waited at least 3 years. Even then, I didn't upgrade for the screen (which was nice, but not why). I upgraded for the wifi/gps/tethering. I upgraded for a phone that could really act more like a portable computer.
Right now, tablets are just big phones. I'll wait until they act like more than phones with oversized screens, cause that's is all
Very good point. I know one sales person who demand it. We've offered to buy them a full MacBook Pro's. No, they specifically wanted an Air. And you're right, the tablet is not for work. We have a few people that have bought them and asked for their email. But beyond that, even the serious Mac users here (graphical artists) don't consider a tablet for work (though I have suggested Adobe apps that let them incorporate their phone/tablet into their work environment).
A totally open government is no government at all. Almost no decisions are not made out in the open, except for Rain Man. All we see is the result of decisions. Taking transparency to its logical conclusion, we'd bug every government employee and politician 24/7. Government would grind to a halt. I'm for open government, to a point. Regardless of what I want to know, there are things I don't want enemies of the state to know.
Secrecy isn't bad. Abuse is bad. Secrecy just makes it easier. But let's not put the cart before the horse. The problem is abuse, and that is solved by audits of even secret agents. One doesn't need to know what the secret program is if they know the grade of the report and the auditing and auditors are open to scrutiny. Companies regularly conduct blind audits for the advantages of being more objective and less subjective.
If you really wanna screw with someone, put in a fighter jet chaff system, and blow chaff behind you as you drive... all traffic behind you will probably come to a complete stand still.
FTA: Additionally, stop and start driving maneuvers in traffic jams are also automated.
This would seem to be the most gamed system. You pop the vehicle in reverse, and hit the car behind you, claiming it hit you.
Of course, this is an old insurance fraud trick, and with on-board blackboxes, one that will lead to a quick trip to jail. Of course, insurance companies are good at catching these types of fraud, too.
I think ultimately, any way you can game a computer, you can also game people. The system that prevents it is trust and insurance. Insurance looks for people with multiple claims, and prosecutors go after them similarly. On top of that, we can build trust. If someone is driving, they are likely not gaming the system because A) If they are, they will be caught. B) If they were caught, and are driving without a license or insurance they'll go to jail if they hit you.
You can game any system, but only for so many times. Unlike a hacker, someone actually driving and causing an accident is either an anarchist who drives away (and police will catch) or a con-man, who can't drive away (and insurance will catch).
This seems more reasonable, though maybe not more exciting, than the Google auto-pilot car. Cruise control helps save driver fatigue, so there is no reason that this cannot too. Already, some production cars look ahead to break, some reduce speed when approaching a slower moving vehicle, and others automatically dim bright lights.
This is a nice baby step. After all, if you can't trust your car, then, well, you can't trust the car with a driver either. Though, it'll still scare the public the same way automatic parking kinda scared me... I don't wanna see cars backing up over cats. I want my cats to die naturally, when God kills them because people masturbate... The point being, that technology scares us because of superstition that somehow people are better at everything, when in fact, we are worse. Cats get run over whether a car does it or a person. But a car can be made to look for cats, and people just figure the little walking demons will move.
This can be positive, though. If we think in terms of government, it helps push for more open government and governmental data as a freedom of speech issue, even in cases where certain things are "copyrighted" by governments, such as NYC subway maps.
I think the key is the de-personalized data that is being used. We can surmise that they were not talking about Patient X using Medication Y showing up in an ad. While that's not analogous, there probably is a yet-to-be defined area between the areas of doctor-patient privacy, personal rights, and information first amendment rights. I doubt it will ever be totally settled except on a case-by-case basis.
Slashdot Mirror
Does it run Linux?
No, but it does play Solitaire, and that's all computers are good for anyways, right?
I agree, and I'm pretty unhappy about the whole dropping Synaptic part. However, as a dual enterprise/home user, with LTS, I have assurance per LTS that those features will be supported for long enough that I don't have to worry about surprises. There are changes, but I have a chance to say yes or no to them.
You are thinking in terms of exit nodes. If setup correctly as a hidden service, Tor maintains the pathway, and you never hit an exit node.
"If you buy this game..."
Nuff said.
Neerrrrddds!!!!! - Oger
OMG, why isn't everything converted to Joules yet! ;)
Woohoo! Go Cleveland!
I'm personally in favor of mesh, but I'll say this... no, I don't want yet another dish on the side of my house. This could have uses, though, thinking nautical.
Just coat the blades and wings with hundreds of pounds of plastic with holes punched them... you'll never heard from the airplane or helicopter again.
...teach kids how to read! They might build a bomb! /sarcasm
Give RedPhone a try. Best of all, it's written for Android, aka encrypted calls via a real phone. For added security, route it via Orbot (Tor).
This is why it matters that we can legally root our phones.
Ubuntu is for home and business, because they offer LTS. They do this, and I am happy to wave their banner to home users and at my work where Ubuntu is replacing old XP machines, rather than Windows 7. But I don't EVER use Firefox. It's too slow, and nobody wants to use it anyways. I use Chromium. It's quick and stable.
Firefox fell out of favor with me over a year ago. It's bloated and their add-on system hasn't evolved fast enough. And without LTS, I won't install it at work.
And here's what they DON'T get (feel free to flame me, I was a FF fanboy once too). If I install something other than IE at work, users here are apt to use the same at home. If I don't install Firefox, they probably won't install it. And if they do run it and ask why we don't run it, my answer is simple, "It's crap."
Go ahead, Mozilla, flip the bird to sys/net admins. We can flip the bird right back and drain the core of your installs to 0. I can't believe you'd say what you did to a major administrator like you did. If you are trying to adopt the Apple snotty attitude, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.
Who the hell do you think actually runs most of your installs? Schools, businesses, and even government. Are you so high on your horse that you think you are the only good browser out there now? IE doesn't suck as bad, Chrome is fast as hell, and Opera has always been solid. As you continue to lose market share, I want to make a serious suggestion. Fire some of your staff. That is the fresh start you need.
Ubuntu at least knows who butters its bread. It's the institutions that are pushing the numbers up. Mozilla doesn't have a clue.
/. has a love button, but nobody wants to touch it.
I figured I'd give you a longer answer, but first... Enhance your calm. (hehe, stuck on Demolition Man lines today). You kinda sound angry, "Rarrr, you angered the great iPad with your spewing, so I shall bold you!"
Anyways...
Not a single phone requires a cellular plan either. I can buy any model on eBay brand new. But does that change the dynamic?
What person would get a 3G device without a plan in the US? Pre-paid data isn't popular for a reason. Wifi-only devices releases late, and none so far have caught my fancy, the Galaxy 10.1 may change that, but I still won't be buying one. If we ditch the contract my "around $700" goes much higher for a decent device (of which, the entry models are not decent).
The real question is why a something separate. Jeff Jarvis has this same complaint on Twit.tv, and I'm in full agreement with him. Rather than get a $5 a month "Add-a-line", they want to hit people up for a full data plan. Now obviously, if I purchase it for someone else, yeah, huge data usage. But if I buy it for myself, why should I even consider paying more? It's not like I can really use both my phone data and my tablet data at the same time? (I actually can think of exceptions, but they are almost all phone-low, tablet-high data, ie - phone for navigation in car, tablet watching Netflix.)
You're commenting like I don't understand what a tablet is for. I do know what it is for very well. But the price is too high, the quality (value, not craftsmanship) is too low (it's a large phone), and it's very immature.
Now, the first $20,000 plasma screen TVs, I would say the same, but even many generations after that, I still say the same. Only recently has the price, quality (value), and maturity come to really be worth the purchase price. And by jumping in late, I'm happy to watch TV on a 52" HD with 3D capability (which I refuse to use, because that IS very immature and I'm not spending $900 for two f#$%ing pairs of glasses and a controller box add-on) for a tiny fraction of the cost of even a modest LCD just 4 years ago.
Give tables (and phones) 5 more years to mature, and then I may change my gap device. The netbook, on the other hand, is just a small laptop, and I don't expect it to really mature further. When tablets can match a netbook on price they'll probably just merge anyways (meaning, a touch screen netbook with no keyboard).
It's an "interesting start". But nobody, not even Apple, has really convinced me. I went to check out the iPad 2. The ads make it sound like Jesus himself crapped his robes when he saw it. I picked it up, played with the interface for a minute, spun through some apps. I put the device back down after roughly 30 seconds, unimpressed. Was not a big improvement over the iPhone 3G I'd had, and actually less impressive than my Droid X. The only advantage was screen size, and nothing more. Not worth my going to Amazon and ordering a new one all decked out for nearly $1000 after shipping and taxes (far above my $700 mark). I'm sorry, but for $1000, it sucks. It sucks big rhino balls, at least, from my point of view in my situation. Mileage may vary.
And, I will admit, Apple has done the best so far. It's not that Apple sucks, it's that we made a phone with a giant screen, and all we really know how to do with it so far is watch video. If that's as good as it gets, sorry, not interested. Then again, the first touch screen phones didn't impress me either, as I had a phone with a trackball already, and touch screen was not "oh, groovy, far out" tech for me. I already worked with touch screens at work. Didn't really care. They had to get a lot better, and I waited at least 3 years. Even then, I didn't upgrade for the screen (which was nice, but not why). I upgraded for the wifi/gps/tethering. I upgraded for a phone that could really act more like a portable computer.
Right now, tablets are just big phones. I'll wait until they act like more than phones with oversized screens, cause that's is all
Very good point. I know one sales person who demand it. We've offered to buy them a full MacBook Pro's. No, they specifically wanted an Air. And you're right, the tablet is not for work. We have a few people that have bought them and asked for their email. But beyond that, even the serious Mac users here (graphical artists) don't consider a tablet for work (though I have suggested Adobe apps that let them incorporate their phone/tablet into their work environment).
A totally open government is no government at all. Almost no decisions are not made out in the open, except for Rain Man. All we see is the result of decisions. Taking transparency to its logical conclusion, we'd bug every government employee and politician 24/7. Government would grind to a halt. I'm for open government, to a point. Regardless of what I want to know, there are things I don't want enemies of the state to know.
Secrecy isn't bad. Abuse is bad. Secrecy just makes it easier. But let's not put the cart before the horse. The problem is abuse, and that is solved by audits of even secret agents. One doesn't need to know what the secret program is if they know the grade of the report and the auditing and auditors are open to scrutiny. Companies regularly conduct blind audits for the advantages of being more objective and less subjective.
...one of the most sad an pathetic stories I've read this week. The idea is genius, but the need for it is an indictment.
EN: Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
ES: Tu gato tiene una piruleta apestoso.
FR: Aprenda a leer las instrucciones de shampoo en Inglés!
... is to suspect that if you fire someone in IT Security and your organization is hacked 2 weeks later... hmmm, who would be your first suspect?
If you really wanna screw with someone, put in a fighter jet chaff system, and blow chaff behind you as you drive... all traffic behind you will probably come to a complete stand still.
FTA: Additionally, stop and start driving maneuvers in traffic jams are also automated.
This would seem to be the most gamed system. You pop the vehicle in reverse, and hit the car behind you, claiming it hit you.
Of course, this is an old insurance fraud trick, and with on-board blackboxes, one that will lead to a quick trip to jail. Of course, insurance companies are good at catching these types of fraud, too.
I think ultimately, any way you can game a computer, you can also game people. The system that prevents it is trust and insurance. Insurance looks for people with multiple claims, and prosecutors go after them similarly. On top of that, we can build trust. If someone is driving, they are likely not gaming the system because A) If they are, they will be caught. B) If they were caught, and are driving without a license or insurance they'll go to jail if they hit you.
You can game any system, but only for so many times. Unlike a hacker, someone actually driving and causing an accident is either an anarchist who drives away (and police will catch) or a con-man, who can't drive away (and insurance will catch).
Mod up Parent! If that's not insightful, hell if I know what is!
This seems more reasonable, though maybe not more exciting, than the Google auto-pilot car. Cruise control helps save driver fatigue, so there is no reason that this cannot too. Already, some production cars look ahead to break, some reduce speed when approaching a slower moving vehicle, and others automatically dim bright lights.
This is a nice baby step. After all, if you can't trust your car, then, well, you can't trust the car with a driver either. Though, it'll still scare the public the same way automatic parking kinda scared me... I don't wanna see cars backing up over cats. I want my cats to die naturally, when God kills them because people masturbate... The point being, that technology scares us because of superstition that somehow people are better at everything, when in fact, we are worse. Cats get run over whether a car does it or a person. But a car can be made to look for cats, and people just figure the little walking demons will move.
This can be positive, though. If we think in terms of government, it helps push for more open government and governmental data as a freedom of speech issue, even in cases where certain things are "copyrighted" by governments, such as NYC subway maps.
I think the key is the de-personalized data that is being used. We can surmise that they were not talking about Patient X using Medication Y showing up in an ad. While that's not analogous, there probably is a yet-to-be defined area between the areas of doctor-patient privacy, personal rights, and information first amendment rights. I doubt it will ever be totally settled except on a case-by-case basis.
All I do is win-win-win no matter what! I got money on my mind, I can never get enough!