If you in any way think "we" have won im seriously troubled.
I don't think we've won or lost. I don't define my thinking about the world (and especially about things like photography rights) by what bin Laden says. It's pointless to do so.
The point is that there is more to science than just picking points in the data and fitting a curve. To draw scientific conclusions about a climate temperature trend, you also need to demonstrate support for a physical mechanism that could plausibly be forcing the trend. If people want to argue that we we are experiencing a recent cooling trend, they need to show data that supports a physical cause for the cooling. Otherwise, as you point out, it's just competitive cherry picking.
The goal of bin Laden was to get the U.S. out of the Middle East. He thought that if he could inflict losses, we would leave, like we left Somalia after "Blackhawk down." Judged by that goal, the terrorists have lost badly.
Prohibiting photography in the Miami metro is probably not at the top of bin Laden's list of goals. So why make this about "the terrorists won?" When we justify our rights with respect to "the terrorists," we're no better than the people who use the same justification to try to squash our rights.
This issue has nothing to do with terrorists winning or losing. It's about fair and legal enforcement of our own laws.
"Affect" can also be used as a noun, meaning a state of mind or way of presenting oneself. "The head injury had the effect of creating a new affect in Jim."
You merely assume that the problems are similar. Upon what are you basing the assumption?
Could you 'short' the antenna in the Nexus One merely by holding a phone in the 'wrong' way? No.
What proof do you have that the antenna is "short"ing on the iPhone 4? The only user-doable test is to look at the bars while changing the grip. That does not tell you what is causing it. It doesn't even produce a repeatable result every time.
Is the reception quantifyably worse than either the Nexus One or the previous generation iPhone? Yes.
Actually folks who have done tests report the reception is better than the previous iPhone. Link
Some of us still have them. Grabbing them does not cause the TV image to drop out. Same with the antenna on my FM radio, which is also bare metal.
If the problem was really clear cut, every iPhone 4 would be experiencing the problem. They're not. This implies there is more to the issue than simply touching the antenna.
A nonprofit affiliate of my company received a Gates grant that included funding for a new Web site. We hired a consulting firm who built us a nice site in Drupal running on LAMP. We were never told we had to use Windows, avoid open source, or really anything at all about our technology choices.
I totally get why you would complain about it if you owned such appliances. But you don't.
Most people complaining on Slashdot about iPhones don't own iPhones either. So really, it's more like complaining about other people's appliances. Which to me, seems like kind of a waste of time.
iPods are computers with different OSs. Cell phones are computers with different OSs. Not to mention the 3 different versions of Windows within the last 10 years. Or the 6 different versions of Mac OS X.
When I was in high school I learned to use computers that ran DOS on monochrome screens. When I was in high school the entire industry in which I now work--building websites--did not exist.
There are a lot of reasons to oppose this program but trying to turn it into an OS war is stupid. By the time these kids reach the workforce, any OS in use today will be laughably out of date.
The whole idea that computer skills are OS-specific is laughably out of date. You know who has trouble jumping between OS's? People over 40. Most kids going into high school today have no problem sitting down at a computer and figuring it out. They've grown up interacting with computers of all shapes and sizes their whole lives.
Hotmail and Yahoo can only characterize spam that goes to Hotmail and Yahoo accounts. The point with Postini is that Google gets to characterize spam that goes to hundreds or thousands of other business domains.
Google also might just have better technology for extracting insight from big collections of data. Most people also think Google's search engine is better than Microsoft's or Yahoo's.
Steve seems intent on using any leverage against competitors no matter how bad the outcome is for the customers.
I think most customers don't give a shit one way or the other whether the ads in their "app" are from Google or Apple or Microsoft. I think most customers just wish the ads would go away so they could get back to what they were doing.
Fights between ad networks are the ultimate in "doesn't matter" for the user experience. Ads are ads and users will try their best to block, hide, or ignore them regardless of source.
Maybe I'm just lucky, but this is spam protection I'd be willing to pay for (but please don't tell Google).
Corporations do pay for it, as the service Postini. We use it at my company to prevent spam from getting through to our Exchange server.
I think one reason it works so well is that between Gmail users and corporate Postini customers, Google has a huge fresh corpus of data to train the system, and to identify new spam campaigns right away. For instance if the same e-mail hits a ton of addresses at the same time, it's a good bet it's a spam campaign.
The reason a hi-res display works on the iPhone and iPad is that the OS is resolution-independent. When you zoom in, text is re-rendered at a higher resolution. The bigger you make text, the sharper it looks, because more pixels are used to render the same letters.
In 2005, and in fact even today, most desktop operating systems are NOT resolution independent. The size of the text is locked to a certain number of pixels. When you zoom in on a Macbook Pro (Control-scroll) for instance, the pixels in the text are simply enlarged. The larger you make text, the fuzzier it looks.
If you put a resolution-dependent OS on a 300 DPI display, the letters will be so tiny as to be unreadable. 100 PPI is a great physical resolution for a resolution-dependent OS like OS X or Windows..it offers ok resolution for images without making text too small to read. That is why even today a 15.4 inch Macbook Pro only has 1440 pixels across 14.35 inches of width.
BPA as a chemical was discovered in the 19th century and it was investigated as a synthetic estrogen in the 1930s. However, it was never pursued as a production estrogen replacement (unlike DES). The question is, why not? Try to find an answer online--it's very difficult.
My understanding is that while it appeared to act like estrogen in the test tube, it turned out to have very little measurable estrogen-like effect in humans. My understanding is based on reading I did on BPA several years ago, but I have misplaced the citations. If anyone has a link to a detailed history of the pharma research involving BPA in the early 20th century, I'd be interested to read it. The Wikipedia article, for instance, is pretty much silent on anything involving BPA before a few years ago.
But the rest of the country, who largely ignores the Gulf Coast during most times, might more easily forget. I'm in DC and couldn't tell you a thing about Hurricane Andrew or why anyone down there would remember it.
I do remember the Valdez spill but I'm personally interested in the outdoors and wilderness in general. Have to admit it does not affect my decision of where to fill up though.
Russia, China, and soon India all have more advanced space programs than the USA right now.
Not right now. The U.S. put more people into orbit on one flight last month than China has in their entire history. Maybe someday China and India will pass us, but not yet.
There's no set "way" that capitalism works. Capitalism is simply a system in which the means of production are under private ownership and value is freely exchanged between private parties. Private parties are free to define their business relationships however they see fit.
There's nothing about a restrictive licensing scheme that is "not capitalism." If one private party offers it, and another buys it--congrats, you've got capitalism. Don't like a particular pricing or licensing scheme? Don't buy it.
If I buy flour, you get money for the amount of flour you sold me at the price you asked, and that is the end of you having any say or interest in that portion of flour. You don't get to come back later and say "Wow, that's a nice loaf of bread you baked. That added some value to that flour, let's talk about what you owe me now...".
AT&T is not coming back later. The terms of the deal are defined up front. Again--under capitalism you just get to decide whether you want to buy it or not.
Now all that said, the U.S. economic system is not pure capitalism. It's mixed and regulated, and you could make a case for government oversight of this type of relationship. My point is just that you can't hide behind the term "capitalism" while you do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Please provide one example of Apple suing an end-user for jailbreaking or otherwise modifying their iPhone. As far as I know it's never happened.
If you in any way think "we" have won im seriously troubled.
I don't think we've won or lost. I don't define my thinking about the world (and especially about things like photography rights) by what bin Laden says. It's pointless to do so.
The point is that there is more to science than just picking points in the data and fitting a curve. To draw scientific conclusions about a climate temperature trend, you also need to demonstrate support for a physical mechanism that could plausibly be forcing the trend. If people want to argue that we we are experiencing a recent cooling trend, they need to show data that supports a physical cause for the cooling. Otherwise, as you point out, it's just competitive cherry picking.
The goal of bin Laden was to get the U.S. out of the Middle East. He thought that if he could inflict losses, we would leave, like we left Somalia after "Blackhawk down." Judged by that goal, the terrorists have lost badly.
Prohibiting photography in the Miami metro is probably not at the top of bin Laden's list of goals. So why make this about "the terrorists won?" When we justify our rights with respect to "the terrorists," we're no better than the people who use the same justification to try to squash our rights.
This issue has nothing to do with terrorists winning or losing. It's about fair and legal enforcement of our own laws.
"Affect" can also be used as a noun, meaning a state of mind or way of presenting oneself. "The head injury had the effect of creating a new affect in Jim."
You merely assume that the problems are similar. Upon what are you basing the assumption?
Could you 'short' the antenna in the Nexus One merely by holding a phone in the 'wrong' way? No.
What proof do you have that the antenna is "short"ing on the iPhone 4? The only user-doable test is to look at the bars while changing the grip. That does not tell you what is causing it. It doesn't even produce a repeatable result every time.
Is the reception quantifyably worse than either the Nexus One or the previous generation iPhone? Yes.
Actually folks who have done tests report the reception is better than the previous iPhone. Link
Some of us still have them. Grabbing them does not cause the TV image to drop out. Same with the antenna on my FM radio, which is also bare metal.
If the problem was really clear cut, every iPhone 4 would be experiencing the problem. They're not. This implies there is more to the issue than simply touching the antenna.
Doesn't Google Analytics make heavy use of Flash? Last time I looked at it on an iPod Touch, the graphs were not viewable.
A nonprofit affiliate of my company received a Gates grant that included funding for a new Web site. We hired a consulting firm who built us a nice site in Drupal running on LAMP. We were never told we had to use Windows, avoid open source, or really anything at all about our technology choices.
I totally get why you would complain about it if you owned such appliances. But you don't.
Most people complaining on Slashdot about iPhones don't own iPhones either. So really, it's more like complaining about other people's appliances. Which to me, seems like kind of a waste of time.
iPods are computers with different OSs. Cell phones are computers with different OSs. Not to mention the 3 different versions of Windows within the last 10 years. Or the 6 different versions of Mac OS X.
When I was in high school I learned to use computers that ran DOS on monochrome screens. When I was in high school the entire industry in which I now work--building websites--did not exist.
There are a lot of reasons to oppose this program but trying to turn it into an OS war is stupid. By the time these kids reach the workforce, any OS in use today will be laughably out of date.
The whole idea that computer skills are OS-specific is laughably out of date. You know who has trouble jumping between OS's? People over 40. Most kids going into high school today have no problem sitting down at a computer and figuring it out. They've grown up interacting with computers of all shapes and sizes their whole lives.
Hotmail and Yahoo can only characterize spam that goes to Hotmail and Yahoo accounts. The point with Postini is that Google gets to characterize spam that goes to hundreds or thousands of other business domains.
Google also might just have better technology for extracting insight from big collections of data. Most people also think Google's search engine is better than Microsoft's or Yahoo's.
Most people buy a computer on which someone else has already installed Windows or OS X.
The easiest install is the one that you don't have to do.
You think Nintendo wrote their own TCP/IP stack from scratch?
Steve seems intent on using any leverage against competitors no matter how bad the outcome is for the customers.
I think most customers don't give a shit one way or the other whether the ads in their "app" are from Google or Apple or Microsoft. I think most customers just wish the ads would go away so they could get back to what they were doing.
Fights between ad networks are the ultimate in "doesn't matter" for the user experience. Ads are ads and users will try their best to block, hide, or ignore them regardless of source.
Maybe I'm just lucky, but this is spam protection I'd be willing to pay for (but please don't tell Google).
Corporations do pay for it, as the service Postini. We use it at my company to prevent spam from getting through to our Exchange server.
I think one reason it works so well is that between Gmail users and corporate Postini customers, Google has a huge fresh corpus of data to train the system, and to identify new spam campaigns right away. For instance if the same e-mail hits a ton of addresses at the same time, it's a good bet it's a spam campaign.
The reason a hi-res display works on the iPhone and iPad is that the OS is resolution-independent. When you zoom in, text is re-rendered at a higher resolution. The bigger you make text, the sharper it looks, because more pixels are used to render the same letters.
In 2005, and in fact even today, most desktop operating systems are NOT resolution independent. The size of the text is locked to a certain number of pixels. When you zoom in on a Macbook Pro (Control-scroll) for instance, the pixels in the text are simply enlarged. The larger you make text, the fuzzier it looks.
If you put a resolution-dependent OS on a 300 DPI display, the letters will be so tiny as to be unreadable. 100 PPI is a great physical resolution for a resolution-dependent OS like OS X or Windows..it offers ok resolution for images without making text too small to read. That is why even today a 15.4 inch Macbook Pro only has 1440 pixels across 14.35 inches of width.
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/specs.html
With Quicktime and iTunes (and a much lesser extent, Safari), Apple has one of the largest installed bases of any Windows developer.
This sober, fact-based scientific argument will surely force Apple to adjust their bombastic, exaggerated marketing tactics.
BPA as a chemical was discovered in the 19th century and it was investigated as a synthetic estrogen in the 1930s. However, it was never pursued as a production estrogen replacement (unlike DES). The question is, why not? Try to find an answer online--it's very difficult.
My understanding is that while it appeared to act like estrogen in the test tube, it turned out to have very little measurable estrogen-like effect in humans. My understanding is based on reading I did on BPA several years ago, but I have misplaced the citations. If anyone has a link to a detailed history of the pharma research involving BPA in the early 20th century, I'd be interested to read it. The Wikipedia article, for instance, is pretty much silent on anything involving BPA before a few years ago.
But the rest of the country, who largely ignores the Gulf Coast during most times, might more easily forget. I'm in DC and couldn't tell you a thing about Hurricane Andrew or why anyone down there would remember it.
I do remember the Valdez spill but I'm personally interested in the outdoors and wilderness in general. Have to admit it does not affect my decision of where to fill up though.
As soon as I finish checking Techmeme and Twitter.
Russia, China, and soon India all have more advanced space programs than the USA right now.
Not right now. The U.S. put more people into orbit on one flight last month than China has in their entire history. Maybe someday China and India will pass us, but not yet.
There's no set "way" that capitalism works. Capitalism is simply a system in which the means of production are under private ownership and value is freely exchanged between private parties. Private parties are free to define their business relationships however they see fit.
There's nothing about a restrictive licensing scheme that is "not capitalism." If one private party offers it, and another buys it--congrats, you've got capitalism. Don't like a particular pricing or licensing scheme? Don't buy it.
If I buy flour, you get money for the amount of flour you sold me at the price you asked, and that is the end of you having any say or interest in that portion of flour. You don't get to come back later and say "Wow, that's a nice loaf of bread you baked. That added some value to that flour, let's talk about what you owe me now...".
AT&T is not coming back later. The terms of the deal are defined up front. Again--under capitalism you just get to decide whether you want to buy it or not.
Now all that said, the U.S. economic system is not pure capitalism. It's mixed and regulated, and you could make a case for government oversight of this type of relationship. My point is just that you can't hide behind the term "capitalism" while you do so.