The idea that people must know more math is ridiculous. Just because you know more math does not make you smarter, nor does it generally improve that quality of life, including ability to get jobs or perform daily tasks.
In the "google" era of instant information, knowing that you need to use some math principal to perform a task and being able to retrieve information on how and where to use it is more important than expecting to memorize hundreds of examples or theories about math.
However I will say that while in school learning math is important to developing problem solving skills. I may have forgotten 90% of the math concepts I learned in High School and definitely most of the crap forced on my in University, but I know that my problem solving skills were honed learning to solve meaningless mathematical problems and theories. Math courses should focus more on the how of math then the why of it.
Learning math is not useless, but knowing specific math knowledge that you generally do not apply to day to day situations is useless, period. Its like regurgitating random facts at a party, nobody cares. If you feel the problem you are trying to solve can be achieve through math, Google it.
Don't think students are going to re-architect the CPU of the thing, only use it to build apps and find ways to use it in robotics or other applications requiring a cheap on-board computer. I mean according to this guys rant, standard desktops/laptops can't be used in education because all the patents and proprietary code involved in bringing them to market.
Also, education is not going to turn around an invent something using Pi that will be re-sold as a product, meaning the licensing, patent, proprietary nature of Pi is moot.
Sure, if there are shortcomings in the way that the Pi hardware works then by all means claim it is not effective as an educational tool. But people have to get over this whole "open = good, closed = bad" mentality and applying it in situations that simply are idiotic to defend.
If I had a developer working on my team coding apps in assembly they would be fired on the spot. I don't need developers wasting time and money trying to shaving nano-seconds on code execution. Any developer that does not understand how moot it is to toil in machine code in light of significantly improved compiler logic and CPU execution optimizations is not worth their salt as a developer.
Yes, fine, need some high performance math algorithmic to churn away on terabytes of data that could shave hours or days of execution, by all means code as efficiently as you possibly can. However general application development has long since not required a single line of assembly code.
I tire of the argument of assembly > C > C++ > C#/VB/Java etc because with today's CPU performance its moot to toil in low level code to achieve nothing more then smug validation as a cave geek.
This is not a Windows issue but rather the way that developers support High DPI in their apps.
Way too many developers are still using MFC and Win32 for UI development, which has no concept of High-DPI and requires scaling to be done manually. If the app doesn't even poll for the current DPI of the OS then nothing is going to scale correctly using those antiquated API's.
WPF automatically adjusts controls to the DPI settings of the OS, however if you don't use vector paths to render UI elements you might see an ugly bitmap stretch here and there. Haven't fully investigated Windows RT (the framework, not the tablet), but I am sure DPI awareness is also a fundamental part of its presentation framework. If a developer throws a 16x16 icon into an app resource, you are going to get and ugly scale.
When it comes to web pages then its anyone's guess how the web designer will support high DPI. Web pages are still mostly a bunch of static jpg's so scaling up something that looks like a line on regular DPI settings, only to see it smear and blur into a bar as shown in the article is purely the fault of the web page designer.
I do agree that as a whole Microsoft needs to do a little better job supporting High DPI across their API's, but most of what this article mentions comes from poor app/web design more then anything.
However it definitely seems a blend of Windows Phone meets iPhone with a little Android thrown in (just kidding).
Even if this fails as a product, it is important to get Apple aware that there are competitive forces out there creating better UI paradigms then "just a grid of app icons".
Mozilla should take great care however because a circle is just a rounded rectangle with corner radius = 1/2 height of rectangle.
The only problem is that Intel's platform to support Windows 8 in a tablet platform is pre-mature. Smashing desktop or laptop CPU's into a tablet will probably result in poor battery and crippled performance and Intel is still struggling to find a foothold in the mobile CPU market. Intel is going to be put front and center in direct comparisons with iPad and Android tablets and even ARM based Windows RT tablets and I think Intel is expecting unfavorable comparisons because Microsoft is forcing Intel into a market they are not quite ready to participate in. As Intel is suffering considerable loss in the post-PC era, any lack of consumer confidence in their ability to produce a good tablet platform will result in significant decline in Intel's market share.
Intel is spreading FUD to slow the adoption of Windows 8 while they struggle to prepare a mobile CPU platform. This speaks of a company that is lacking in confidence and perhaps has jumped the shark and are unable to compete in the post-PC era. Windows 8 may just shine a light on how slowly Intel has moved towards a mobile platform and obviously Intel is afraid of this.
Its obvious Apple cut corners on the quality of materials used to make the iPhone 5 (scuff marks), the quality of construction of the iPhone 5 (light leaks and damage on arrival), and the quality of the software that is included in iPhone 5.
Also there are already component supply shortages because Apple moved away from using Samsung and instead finding cheaper competitors. And obviously nothing has improved over in China given the riots which suggests Apple hasn't improved the pay or quality of work conditions over there..
Apple is their own worse enemy. It won't be any one competitor that takes down Apple, it will be Apple rolling out a fiasco that will take them down. Something like what the iPhone 5 is amounting too.
What is hilarious is the excuses both Apple and its fan boys are using to defend what is amounting to one of the worst product roll outs Apple has offered in recent history.
The truth is that had Steve Job's been alive he would have been fuming of this disaster. Heads would be rolling at Apple today. He would never have allowed release of a new Map product that did not surpass the quality of the product it replaced, he would never have allowed the leaks of all the information about the iPhone including photos of the actual case months in advance, and he never would have allowed a product to be released that scratched if you blew too hard on it, not after the first few generations of iPods with flawed easily scratched materials.
It is very obvious that Apple peaked the moment Jobs died. To claim the iPhone 5 is the last of his legacy, the last product he was intimately involved in suggests that today's Apple has no respect for the man that made that company.
Tim Cook and Jonathan Ives should be both be fired. There are way too many people wanting iPhone 5 to be more then it is, but it really is just a disaster that few want to admit is possible.
So if the RIAA/MPAA sued to protect their content then there would be a massive tirade on Slashdot about the evilness of DCMA and those trying to protect their content. However the moment some "average Joe" finds someone is using his content without his permission suddenly it's Slashdot to the rescue to try and offer advice on how to protect his interests.
You can't have it both ways guys and gals.
So either DCMA is evil and must be abolished, meaning that anybody posting content is at the mercy of unscrupulous users that would simply take the content and use it however they see fit,
OR
DCMA is a necessary component of digital distribution in which those people that choose to offer their content under its protection are entitled to fight for their IP distribution rights when its in violation.
You can't pick and choose to defend or deny the existence of DCMA based on the amount of money the content holder makes off it. Just because some movie company wants to protect their billion dollar blockbuster is no less valid a claim to protect their IP as some guy that doesn't hope to earn a penny off their content. DCMA is offered to ANYBODY that wants to distribute content that requires licensing for use or viewing.
So, the majority of posters here offering advice to this guy to protect his interest are pure hypocrites because if this was a story about the RIAA or MPAA suing some grandmother for distributing millions of songs and movies then the very same people would be in outrage.
So, my advice. Get over it, accept the fact that the moment you post something digitally online people are going to abuse it. If you are suffering financial or personal damages because of its use, then sue like every other claimant under DCMA protection.
I think it is clear that Apple is a hardware company FIRST, then a software company. If Apple applied some of their hardware design principles to their UI design, we would be seeing some highly evolved and hopefully massively well received UI design. I think people want to use Apple's hardware and simply have to put up with their software, and of course assume the software must be on par with the quality of the hardware.
Considering how much evolution has been seen in Apple's hardware over the last 10 years, and how little their OS'es have evolved, I think speaks to my point completely. For instance Mountain Lion is nothing more then Lion with a few more apps built into it.
Apple's UI is not perfect, far from it. The assumption of "don't break what works" does not apply. Apple will see eventual erosion of their iDevice market as Microsoft and Google innovate in UI design while Apple persists with the same UI year after year. Eventually there will be some feature of Windows or Android that will make them more attractive then iOS or OS X. An product that remains static cannot compete indefinitely with consistently evolving product.
Apple is the catalyst that will begin (or has already begun) the Stupocalypse where society becomes increasingly impressed and influenced by trivial nonsense to its ultimate demise.
Apple stole the "adult" casual gamer market and pretty much assured that any child of these adults are also highly invested in games on the Apple platform. I can't get my niece and nephew off my iPad or iPod touch when they come to visit. When you have a platform of Free to $4.99 games that keep children interested for hours, what is the point of the Wii U?
Nintendo is trying to mimic Apple's success my mashing (more like mangling) a touch pad with a game platform, and I think this is ill conceived. Its coming off as a cheap novelty act. The fact they are not supporting multi-player games on release speaks to fact that WiiPad is a cheap gimmick rather then a fully vested feature of the new WiiU. Why wouldn't Nintendo WANT people to buy multiple expensive controllers to support multi-player games? Nintendo just didn't figure out how to use the WiiPad properly for games and so never bothered to develop multi-player games. Also Nintendo forgot to make it a "next" generation game console. They finally add yesterday's features, such as HDMI port and 1080p support, but what about 4K displays? And I doubt they will offer 3D gaming in spite of speculation.
The Wii U seems like it was quickly drafted up to try and stave off the loss of revenue from lackluster Wii and 3DS sales and I don't think this console will do much to bring casual gamers back to the Wii platform that are happily entrenched in the world if iOS. I think Nintendo did more to turn people off the Wii then it did to lock them in. I don't care how many consoles you sell, if you can't find a market of people willing to buy your games, then you failed, period. I have friends that never played anything more then Wii Sports.
Its going to be a tough next couple of years for Nintendo because I think the Wii U will suck money away from them as they try to promote and sell it. They will probably have to sell it at a loss in the very near future to boost sales, and I think a $250 Xbox 360 with Kinect bundle and Second Screen features is a hell of a lot better deal then the Wii U.
Also Wii U the dumbest name for a game console in the history of game consoles. Nintendo couldn't even come up with an inspirational new name for their next-generation game console and I think that speaks gobs about the lack of innovation and enthusiasm Nintendo has (not) invested into this thing.
LOL, I guess Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon have it all wrong then. Yeah, those companies are going out of business soon and I am sure those companies absolutely suck to work for.
Sure there are examples of people that were hired that had some incredible talent without a degree, but I know for a fact these companies won't generally look at your resume unless you either have years or real experience or a degree fresh out of school. It's simply not worth it for them to toil through thousands of applications for "uneducated" candidates looking for that gem in the rough. These companies have massive HR staff that are still heavily taxed to produce top talent and they are just not going to waste effort on applications where someone is 16 with a High School diploma and A+ in Software class, or 32 and spent 10 years in basket weaving but did a little software development on the side.
As for hard working? I've seen a lot of "hard working" self-taught developers over the years, they need to work 60 hours a week to simply to produce "adequate" code. Software development is not like brick laying, hard effort may build a wall quicker but doesn't generally make software quality better.
...is proof that the education system has FAILED in America. Now politicians and bureaucrats raised under a failed education system are starting to make policy and decision while citizens of a failed system are going to vote.
I am personally preparing for the Stupocalypse which is currently in progress and nearing its peak.
Seriously, there is no valid argument to legitimize TPB.
Bottom line is if a content provider distributes content under some protective license, regardless of how you feel about that license, does not entitle you to steal that content.
I agree that a lot of content providers need to learn how to embrace online distribution; charging ridiculous prices for online content, excessive DRM schemes or restrictions, or treating customers like criminals is NOT the way to embrace the 21st century model for content distribution. But again, this does not entitle a person to steal content.
I may not like the cost of a Porche 911, or am jealous if other people are driving one, but that does not give me the right to steal it. There is no difference between a physical product like a car, or a digital product like a movie, book, music, or TV show when it comes to someone 'rights" to steal it, there is no fundamental right to steal a product when there restrictions on distribution. People invested time, energy and money to produce a product and so it does not give someone a reason to come along and access it or re-distribute it for free because they do not like the conditions for its distribution.
Sure, if you want to use TPB as a distribution network for your content because you do not believe in being compensated for your time and investment then by all means do so. But then I would stop trying to promote TPB as a renegade "piracy" online source of content and set up a legit online promotion tool for those people looking to embrace 21st century content distribution. Stop trying to protest online content distribution and instead focus on setting up a real online content distribution mechanism.
If TPB was run by pragmatists, and not vapid idealists, then there is no reason why TPB (or some incarnation of the principle) could not have created a rival to iTunes, Google Play, or Amazon. But idealists cannot see the forest through the trees and are two busy trying to fight for a right they simply don't have. They are vaguely aware of the fact they can provide an exceptional service "for the rest of us" but are unable to execute it.
If I founded TPB I would end the practice of distributing illegal content (remove all illegal torrents, period) and instead focus on trying to promote an alternative distribution mechanism that focuses on DRM and license free content to rival that of the "paid" services in an effort to educate "traditional" content providers on the merits of this form of distribution.
TPB is never going to win by re-distributing retail content. Lawyers and content creators and providers are going to fight them every step of the way. If someone doesn't want to embrace free distribution then there is no argument on the planet that is going to protect someone from re-distributing their paid content, period. It's not the "good fight", its a dead end. But providing an example of and alternative way to distribute content is the only way to bring enlightenment.
This has been a multi-decade bullshit legal battle between the EU and Microsoft at a time when PC's are becoming irrelevant and Apple is emerging as something worse the Microsoft ever was.
At a time when the EU is still up in arms about Microsoft embedding a stupid browser and media player into Windows (because the EU assumes all Europeans a retarded and cant figure out how to use a computer properly), meanwhile Apple is securing a market of walled gardens where you can only buy and use content on some Apple provided platform.
Is the EU so delusional and retarded that they can't see the forest through the trees? They are pursuing legal actions against a "perceived" monopoly while a REAL monopoly is being established right under their noses.
The EU is supposed to act when European interests are at threat. Apple is creating a 100% American controlled mobile device and content distribution platform and the EU is doing nothing about it.
I think Microsoft's "monopoly" is moot now. What Microsoft did was awaken a giant in Apple. Apple could not compete on the desktop, so Apple created a mobile marketplace whose entire purpose is to "destroy the competition". Yet the EU still seems insistent and trying to pursue legal actions against an increasingly irrelevant platform.
So, lets tally the claims against Microsoft compared to what Apple does today:
Microsoft includes IE with every copy of Windows. Apple actually prevented 3rd party browsers on iOS until recently and ship every iDevice and Mac with Safari as default browser.
Microsoft includes Media Player with every copy of Windows. Apple provides iTunes as the ONLY way to purchase content and generally the only way to get content from a Mac onto iDevices. Apple has also done away with "computer" necessities to get content onto iDevices thus preventing ANY 3rd party from ever offering a content service for an iDevice. Windows Media Player was set up to allow 3rd party music store services and support for 3rd party devices, it NEVER directly tied a user to a Microsoft content platform.
EU forced Microsoft to break Windows into multiple installation versions so that consumers can pick and choose what level of features they wanted to install. Apple has always shipped one consumer version of OS X and iOS updates involve zero configuration option until after it is installed.
In addition to what Microsoft has done historically:
Apple is securing an Apple only content platform. Microsoft has ALWAYS embraced 3rd party content distribution on Windows.
Apple sets prices for hardware and limits hardware selection. Microsoft generally only provided software allowing many companies to offer a range of products with a variety of feature and price points.
Apple controls and limits competition DIRECTLY on iOS. Microsoft NEVER blocked applications running on Windows even when competitive services were offered like Firefox and Chrome.
Lastly, I would argue that Microsoft's "monopoly" inspired a generation of innovation and competition. Firefox and Chrome had emerged as excellent alternatives to IE for instance. Both software and hardware companies flourished under Microsoft's reign of monopoly by both embracing Microsoft's platform AND competing against it with their own innovative products. Google would still be a search engine if not for trying to out Microsoft Microsoft. If Linux could be selected and installed as easily as Windows then I think Linux would have actually died as an alternative for its lack of ease of use historically.
Apple's reign of monopoly is destroying the technology marketplace. Companies are going bankrupt because they cannot find a competitive edge against Apple. Software/Content companies either have to adapt to Apple's platform, or die. Apple is shutting out direct competition and maneuvering into a position to aggressively destroy competitive services and devices. Apple is crippling innovation through aggressive patent squatting and litigation against IP infringements.
So EU, is Microsoft the poster-child for anti-competitive practices? Or are you going to wake up and realize Apple is doing anti-competitive better and with greater impact then anything Microsoft has ever done.
The internet has done one thing very very well, propagate stupidity faster that passes off as science or news.
There is a local radio station that has a PSA about how to be "greener", and the majority of the suggestions and "facts" claimed in the PSA are just plain wrong.
For instance they claim that driving 120 km/h in a 100 km/h zone uses 20% more gas. This is fundamentally stupid because there is no correlation to an increase in speed by X% matches the increased rate of fuel consumption.
Another gem, apparently Canadians throwing out plastic garbage bags results in millions (plural) of tonnes of landfill waste a year. The average plastic grocery bag weighs 6 grams. There is therefore 166666666667 bags in 1 million metric tonnes (169341166667 in a long tonne). THis breaks down to each Canadian throwing out over 4500 bags a year. I personally do not do that much shopping. Also I can't stand the idea of "mythmatics", the idea that large numbers are scary so we should reduce those numbers to be green. Yes 1 million tonnes is a big scary number, however consider how much of ALL garbage is thrown out. Statistics Canada suggests the average Canadian throws out 1 tonne of garbage a year, which means the total impact of even throwing out 4500 plastic grocery bags is only 2.7%. However I doubt the average Canadian even throws out 1/10 of that many bags a year, meaning that really less then 0.3% of total landfill waste is from plastic bags.
Throwing out plastic bags is the biggest non-issue compared to the rest of the weight of garbage that is thrown out.
Most of this is regurgitated stupidity from the internet based in little fact and a lot of hyperbole. People read about it online and then re-broadcast it without investing any amount of time verifying it.
The problem is that the internet has become very good at showing content that looks factual, even makes sense if you think about it, but is based on no facts, no science, and is ultimately wrong, but then gets propagated over and over again until it basically becomes urban myth.
A lot of "Green" science is mired in this kind of social disinformation.
Seriously, looks at the most successful *nix distros, OS X, Android, you know damn well that these are not "community" driven projects.
The biggest problem with Linux has always been is fragmentation. Having 1000 distro's all thinking they can make a better desktop platform, better development system, better server, better UI, etc weakens the whole community source code initiative. A lot of great developers are all working on different variations of essentially the same thing, which waters down the whiskey.
I think the ONLY thing that could fix Linux is to create one-Uber distro, make is a real community project and put all the collective innovation and interest into creating one desktop version of Linux.
However, the big problem now is that the Desktop is dying, so I think any effort into making Linux for the Desktop is moot. Even if a super-uber fantastic Desktop Linux is created today, the platform it runs on is dying.
Linux has to move into Mobile platforms if it wants to survive, but then that will introduce a whole new generation of groups thinking they know how to build a better iOS/Android killer, and failing miserably at it.
I think fundamentally open source OS'es fail, period. The only successful versions of Linux/*nix have been relatively closed projects from big companies with deep pockets. About the only hope for Linux is to wrap it into some hardware platform like a game console, tablet, phone, etc which effectively closes it down. Linux is like Utopia, everybody wants it but it is fundamentally unattainable because it is a flawed concept unless you compromise.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea that people must know more math is ridiculous. Just because you know more math does not make you smarter, nor does it generally improve that quality of life, including ability to get jobs or perform daily tasks.
In the "google" era of instant information, knowing that you need to use some math principal to perform a task and being able to retrieve information on how and where to use it is more important than expecting to memorize hundreds of examples or theories about math.
However I will say that while in school learning math is important to developing problem solving skills. I may have forgotten 90% of the math concepts I learned in High School and definitely most of the crap forced on my in University, but I know that my problem solving skills were honed learning to solve meaningless mathematical problems and theories. Math courses should focus more on the how of math then the why of it.
Learning math is not useless, but knowing specific math knowledge that you generally do not apply to day to day situations is useless, period. Its like regurgitating random facts at a party, nobody cares. If you feel the problem you are trying to solve can be achieve through math, Google it.
Don't think students are going to re-architect the CPU of the thing, only use it to build apps and find ways to use it in robotics or other applications requiring a cheap on-board computer. I mean according to this guys rant, standard desktops/laptops can't be used in education because all the patents and proprietary code involved in bringing them to market.
Also, education is not going to turn around an invent something using Pi that will be re-sold as a product, meaning the licensing, patent, proprietary nature of Pi is moot.
Sure, if there are shortcomings in the way that the Pi hardware works then by all means claim it is not effective as an educational tool. But people have to get over this whole "open = good, closed = bad" mentality and applying it in situations that simply are idiotic to defend.
If I had a developer working on my team coding apps in assembly they would be fired on the spot. I don't need developers wasting time and money trying to shaving nano-seconds on code execution. Any developer that does not understand how moot it is to toil in machine code in light of significantly improved compiler logic and CPU execution optimizations is not worth their salt as a developer.
Yes, fine, need some high performance math algorithmic to churn away on terabytes of data that could shave hours or days of execution, by all means code as efficiently as you possibly can. However general application development has long since not required a single line of assembly code.
I tire of the argument of assembly > C > C++ > C#/VB/Java etc because with today's CPU performance its moot to toil in low level code to achieve nothing more then smug validation as a cave geek.
Apple created a market of stupid people wanting VGA sized UI displayed on 2560 X 1440 screens just so their rounded corners are not as fuzzy.
This is not a Windows issue but rather the way that developers support High DPI in their apps.
Way too many developers are still using MFC and Win32 for UI development, which has no concept of High-DPI and requires scaling to be done manually. If the app doesn't even poll for the current DPI of the OS then nothing is going to scale correctly using those antiquated API's.
WPF automatically adjusts controls to the DPI settings of the OS, however if you don't use vector paths to render UI elements you might see an ugly bitmap stretch here and there. Haven't fully investigated Windows RT (the framework, not the tablet), but I am sure DPI awareness is also a fundamental part of its presentation framework. If a developer throws a 16x16 icon into an app resource, you are going to get and ugly scale.
When it comes to web pages then its anyone's guess how the web designer will support high DPI. Web pages are still mostly a bunch of static jpg's so scaling up something that looks like a line on regular DPI settings, only to see it smear and blur into a bar as shown in the article is purely the fault of the web page designer.
I do agree that as a whole Microsoft needs to do a little better job supporting High DPI across their API's, but most of what this article mentions comes from poor app/web design more then anything.
However it definitely seems a blend of Windows Phone meets iPhone with a little Android thrown in (just kidding).
Even if this fails as a product, it is important to get Apple aware that there are competitive forces out there creating better UI paradigms then "just a grid of app icons".
Mozilla should take great care however because a circle is just a rounded rectangle with corner radius = 1/2 height of rectangle.
All of the universe's problems are attributed to excessive carbon dioxide according to the BBC.
The only problem is that Intel's platform to support Windows 8 in a tablet platform is pre-mature. Smashing desktop or laptop CPU's into a tablet will probably result in poor battery and crippled performance and Intel is still struggling to find a foothold in the mobile CPU market. Intel is going to be put front and center in direct comparisons with iPad and Android tablets and even ARM based Windows RT tablets and I think Intel is expecting unfavorable comparisons because Microsoft is forcing Intel into a market they are not quite ready to participate in. As Intel is suffering considerable loss in the post-PC era, any lack of consumer confidence in their ability to produce a good tablet platform will result in significant decline in Intel's market share.
Intel is spreading FUD to slow the adoption of Windows 8 while they struggle to prepare a mobile CPU platform. This speaks of a company that is lacking in confidence and perhaps has jumped the shark and are unable to compete in the post-PC era. Windows 8 may just shine a light on how slowly Intel has moved towards a mobile platform and obviously Intel is afraid of this.
Its obvious Apple cut corners on the quality of materials used to make the iPhone 5 (scuff marks), the quality of construction of the iPhone 5 (light leaks and damage on arrival), and the quality of the software that is included in iPhone 5.
Also there are already component supply shortages because Apple moved away from using Samsung and instead finding cheaper competitors. And obviously nothing has improved over in China given the riots which suggests Apple hasn't improved the pay or quality of work conditions over there..
Apple is their own worse enemy. It won't be any one competitor that takes down Apple, it will be Apple rolling out a fiasco that will take them down. Something like what the iPhone 5 is amounting too.
What is hilarious is the excuses both Apple and its fan boys are using to defend what is amounting to one of the worst product roll outs Apple has offered in recent history.
The truth is that had Steve Job's been alive he would have been fuming of this disaster. Heads would be rolling at Apple today. He would never have allowed release of a new Map product that did not surpass the quality of the product it replaced, he would never have allowed the leaks of all the information about the iPhone including photos of the actual case months in advance, and he never would have allowed a product to be released that scratched if you blew too hard on it, not after the first few generations of iPods with flawed easily scratched materials.
It is very obvious that Apple peaked the moment Jobs died. To claim the iPhone 5 is the last of his legacy, the last product he was intimately involved in suggests that today's Apple has no respect for the man that made that company.
Tim Cook and Jonathan Ives should be both be fired. There are way too many people wanting iPhone 5 to be more then it is, but it really is just a disaster that few want to admit is possible.
What will be shocking and scary is this guy will get roughly 50% of America's votes.
So if the RIAA/MPAA sued to protect their content then there would be a massive tirade on Slashdot about the evilness of DCMA and those trying to protect their content. However the moment some "average Joe" finds someone is using his content without his permission suddenly it's Slashdot to the rescue to try and offer advice on how to protect his interests.
You can't have it both ways guys and gals.
So either DCMA is evil and must be abolished, meaning that anybody posting content is at the mercy of unscrupulous users that would simply take the content and use it however they see fit,
OR
DCMA is a necessary component of digital distribution in which those people that choose to offer their content under its protection are entitled to fight for their IP distribution rights when its in violation.
You can't pick and choose to defend or deny the existence of DCMA based on the amount of money the content holder makes off it. Just because some movie company wants to protect their billion dollar blockbuster is no less valid a claim to protect their IP as some guy that doesn't hope to earn a penny off their content. DCMA is offered to ANYBODY that wants to distribute content that requires licensing for use or viewing.
So, the majority of posters here offering advice to this guy to protect his interest are pure hypocrites because if this was a story about the RIAA or MPAA suing some grandmother for distributing millions of songs and movies then the very same people would be in outrage.
So, my advice. Get over it, accept the fact that the moment you post something digitally online people are going to abuse it. If you are suffering financial or personal damages because of its use, then sue like every other claimant under DCMA protection.
Yeah, saw the Top Gear episode where they were driving through Romania and struck that destination off my bucket list.
Its one of them 200 new features Apple is bragging about.
I think it is clear that Apple is a hardware company FIRST, then a software company. If Apple applied some of their hardware design principles to their UI design, we would be seeing some highly evolved and hopefully massively well received UI design. I think people want to use Apple's hardware and simply have to put up with their software, and of course assume the software must be on par with the quality of the hardware.
Considering how much evolution has been seen in Apple's hardware over the last 10 years, and how little their OS'es have evolved, I think speaks to my point completely. For instance Mountain Lion is nothing more then Lion with a few more apps built into it.
Apple's UI is not perfect, far from it. The assumption of "don't break what works" does not apply. Apple will see eventual erosion of their iDevice market as Microsoft and Google innovate in UI design while Apple persists with the same UI year after year. Eventually there will be some feature of Windows or Android that will make them more attractive then iOS or OS X. An product that remains static cannot compete indefinitely with consistently evolving product.
Apple is the catalyst that will begin (or has already begun) the Stupocalypse where society becomes increasingly impressed and influenced by trivial nonsense to its ultimate demise.
Apple stole the "adult" casual gamer market and pretty much assured that any child of these adults are also highly invested in games on the Apple platform. I can't get my niece and nephew off my iPad or iPod touch when they come to visit. When you have a platform of Free to $4.99 games that keep children interested for hours, what is the point of the Wii U?
Nintendo is trying to mimic Apple's success my mashing (more like mangling) a touch pad with a game platform, and I think this is ill conceived. Its coming off as a cheap novelty act. The fact they are not supporting multi-player games on release speaks to fact that WiiPad is a cheap gimmick rather then a fully vested feature of the new WiiU. Why wouldn't Nintendo WANT people to buy multiple expensive controllers to support multi-player games? Nintendo just didn't figure out how to use the WiiPad properly for games and so never bothered to develop multi-player games. Also Nintendo forgot to make it a "next" generation game console. They finally add yesterday's features, such as HDMI port and 1080p support, but what about 4K displays? And I doubt they will offer 3D gaming in spite of speculation.
The Wii U seems like it was quickly drafted up to try and stave off the loss of revenue from lackluster Wii and 3DS sales and I don't think this console will do much to bring casual gamers back to the Wii platform that are happily entrenched in the world if iOS. I think Nintendo did more to turn people off the Wii then it did to lock them in. I don't care how many consoles you sell, if you can't find a market of people willing to buy your games, then you failed, period. I have friends that never played anything more then Wii Sports.
Its going to be a tough next couple of years for Nintendo because I think the Wii U will suck money away from them as they try to promote and sell it. They will probably have to sell it at a loss in the very near future to boost sales, and I think a $250 Xbox 360 with Kinect bundle and Second Screen features is a hell of a lot better deal then the Wii U.
Also Wii U the dumbest name for a game console in the history of game consoles. Nintendo couldn't even come up with an inspirational new name for their next-generation game console and I think that speaks gobs about the lack of innovation and enthusiasm Nintendo has (not) invested into this thing.
Doing sh*t because we can! Now scientists will spend 100 years trying to figure out what to do with these crystals. Will end up in iPhone50 S.
LOL, I guess Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon have it all wrong then. Yeah, those companies are going out of business soon and I am sure those companies absolutely suck to work for.
Sure there are examples of people that were hired that had some incredible talent without a degree, but I know for a fact these companies won't generally look at your resume unless you either have years or real experience or a degree fresh out of school. It's simply not worth it for them to toil through thousands of applications for "uneducated" candidates looking for that gem in the rough. These companies have massive HR staff that are still heavily taxed to produce top talent and they are just not going to waste effort on applications where someone is 16 with a High School diploma and A+ in Software class, or 32 and spent 10 years in basket weaving but did a little software development on the side.
As for hard working? I've seen a lot of "hard working" self-taught developers over the years, they need to work 60 hours a week to simply to produce "adequate" code. Software development is not like brick laying, hard effort may build a wall quicker but doesn't generally make software quality better.
Maybe that headset looks tiny on Gabe, but for a normal sized human that is a monstrosity.
Big Picture looks cool, but the future of gaming is not just a fancy HD interface to an app store.
So far Valve is getting a failing grade on efforts to create a "new" gaming platform.
...is proof that the education system has FAILED in America. Now politicians and bureaucrats raised under a failed education system are starting to make policy and decision while citizens of a failed system are going to vote.
I am personally preparing for the Stupocalypse which is currently in progress and nearing its peak.
Seriously, there is no valid argument to legitimize TPB.
Bottom line is if a content provider distributes content under some protective license, regardless of how you feel about that license, does not entitle you to steal that content.
I agree that a lot of content providers need to learn how to embrace online distribution; charging ridiculous prices for online content, excessive DRM schemes or restrictions, or treating customers like criminals is NOT the way to embrace the 21st century model for content distribution. But again, this does not entitle a person to steal content.
I may not like the cost of a Porche 911, or am jealous if other people are driving one, but that does not give me the right to steal it. There is no difference between a physical product like a car, or a digital product like a movie, book, music, or TV show when it comes to someone 'rights" to steal it, there is no fundamental right to steal a product when there restrictions on distribution. People invested time, energy and money to produce a product and so it does not give someone a reason to come along and access it or re-distribute it for free because they do not like the conditions for its distribution.
Sure, if you want to use TPB as a distribution network for your content because you do not believe in being compensated for your time and investment then by all means do so. But then I would stop trying to promote TPB as a renegade "piracy" online source of content and set up a legit online promotion tool for those people looking to embrace 21st century content distribution. Stop trying to protest online content distribution and instead focus on setting up a real online content distribution mechanism.
If TPB was run by pragmatists, and not vapid idealists, then there is no reason why TPB (or some incarnation of the principle) could not have created a rival to iTunes, Google Play, or Amazon. But idealists cannot see the forest through the trees and are two busy trying to fight for a right they simply don't have. They are vaguely aware of the fact they can provide an exceptional service "for the rest of us" but are unable to execute it.
If I founded TPB I would end the practice of distributing illegal content (remove all illegal torrents, period) and instead focus on trying to promote an alternative distribution mechanism that focuses on DRM and license free content to rival that of the "paid" services in an effort to educate "traditional" content providers on the merits of this form of distribution.
TPB is never going to win by re-distributing retail content. Lawyers and content creators and providers are going to fight them every step of the way. If someone doesn't want to embrace free distribution then there is no argument on the planet that is going to protect someone from re-distributing their paid content, period. It's not the "good fight", its a dead end. But providing an example of and alternative way to distribute content is the only way to bring enlightenment.
yes, I said it.
This has been a multi-decade bullshit legal battle between the EU and Microsoft at a time when PC's are becoming irrelevant and Apple is emerging as something worse the Microsoft ever was.
At a time when the EU is still up in arms about Microsoft embedding a stupid browser and media player into Windows (because the EU assumes all Europeans a retarded and cant figure out how to use a computer properly), meanwhile Apple is securing a market of walled gardens where you can only buy and use content on some Apple provided platform.
Is the EU so delusional and retarded that they can't see the forest through the trees? They are pursuing legal actions against a "perceived" monopoly while a REAL monopoly is being established right under their noses.
The EU is supposed to act when European interests are at threat. Apple is creating a 100% American controlled mobile device and content distribution platform and the EU is doing nothing about it.
I think Microsoft's "monopoly" is moot now. What Microsoft did was awaken a giant in Apple. Apple could not compete on the desktop, so Apple created a mobile marketplace whose entire purpose is to "destroy the competition". Yet the EU still seems insistent and trying to pursue legal actions against an increasingly irrelevant platform.
So, lets tally the claims against Microsoft compared to what Apple does today:
Microsoft includes IE with every copy of Windows. Apple actually prevented 3rd party browsers on iOS until recently and ship every iDevice and Mac with Safari as default browser.
Microsoft includes Media Player with every copy of Windows. Apple provides iTunes as the ONLY way to purchase content and generally the only way to get content from a Mac onto iDevices. Apple has also done away with "computer" necessities to get content onto iDevices thus preventing ANY 3rd party from ever offering a content service for an iDevice. Windows Media Player was set up to allow 3rd party music store services and support for 3rd party devices, it NEVER directly tied a user to a Microsoft content platform.
EU forced Microsoft to break Windows into multiple installation versions so that consumers can pick and choose what level of features they wanted to install. Apple has always shipped one consumer version of OS X and iOS updates involve zero configuration option until after it is installed.
In addition to what Microsoft has done historically:
Apple is securing an Apple only content platform. Microsoft has ALWAYS embraced 3rd party content distribution on Windows.
Apple sets prices for hardware and limits hardware selection. Microsoft generally only provided software allowing many companies to offer a range of products with a variety of feature and price points.
Apple controls and limits competition DIRECTLY on iOS. Microsoft NEVER blocked applications running on Windows even when competitive services were offered like Firefox and Chrome.
Lastly, I would argue that Microsoft's "monopoly" inspired a generation of innovation and competition. Firefox and Chrome had emerged as excellent alternatives to IE for instance. Both software and hardware companies flourished under Microsoft's reign of monopoly by both embracing Microsoft's platform AND competing against it with their own innovative products. Google would still be a search engine if not for trying to out Microsoft Microsoft. If Linux could be selected and installed as easily as Windows then I think Linux would have actually died as an alternative for its lack of ease of use historically.
Apple's reign of monopoly is destroying the technology marketplace. Companies are going bankrupt because they cannot find a competitive edge against Apple. Software/Content companies either have to adapt to Apple's platform, or die. Apple is shutting out direct competition and maneuvering into a position to aggressively destroy competitive services and devices. Apple is crippling innovation through aggressive patent squatting and litigation against IP infringements.
So EU, is Microsoft the poster-child for anti-competitive practices? Or are you going to wake up and realize Apple is doing anti-competitive better and with greater impact then anything Microsoft has ever done.
The internet has done one thing very very well, propagate stupidity faster that passes off as science or news.
There is a local radio station that has a PSA about how to be "greener", and the majority of the suggestions and "facts" claimed in the PSA are just plain wrong.
For instance they claim that driving 120 km/h in a 100 km/h zone uses 20% more gas. This is fundamentally stupid because there is no correlation to an increase in speed by X% matches the increased rate of fuel consumption.
Another gem, apparently Canadians throwing out plastic garbage bags results in millions (plural) of tonnes of landfill waste a year. The average plastic grocery bag weighs 6 grams. There is therefore 166666666667 bags in 1 million metric tonnes (169341166667 in a long tonne). THis breaks down to each Canadian throwing out over 4500 bags a year. I personally do not do that much shopping.
Also I can't stand the idea of "mythmatics", the idea that large numbers are scary so we should reduce those numbers to be green. Yes 1 million tonnes is a big scary number, however consider how much of ALL garbage is thrown out. Statistics Canada suggests the average Canadian throws out 1 tonne of garbage a year, which means the total impact of even throwing out 4500 plastic grocery bags is only 2.7%. However I doubt the average Canadian even throws out 1/10 of that many bags a year, meaning that really less then 0.3% of total landfill waste is from plastic bags.
Throwing out plastic bags is the biggest non-issue compared to the rest of the weight of garbage that is thrown out.
Most of this is regurgitated stupidity from the internet based in little fact and a lot of hyperbole. People read about it online and then re-broadcast it without investing any amount of time verifying it.
The problem is that the internet has become very good at showing content that looks factual, even makes sense if you think about it, but is based on no facts, no science, and is ultimately wrong, but then gets propagated over and over again until it basically becomes urban myth.
A lot of "Green" science is mired in this kind of social disinformation.
Seriously, looks at the most successful *nix distros, OS X, Android, you know damn well that these are not "community" driven projects.
The biggest problem with Linux has always been is fragmentation. Having 1000 distro's all thinking they can make a better desktop platform, better development system, better server, better UI, etc weakens the whole community source code initiative. A lot of great developers are all working on different variations of essentially the same thing, which waters down the whiskey.
I think the ONLY thing that could fix Linux is to create one-Uber distro, make is a real community project and put all the collective innovation and interest into creating one desktop version of Linux.
However, the big problem now is that the Desktop is dying, so I think any effort into making Linux for the Desktop is moot. Even if a super-uber fantastic Desktop Linux is created today, the platform it runs on is dying.
Linux has to move into Mobile platforms if it wants to survive, but then that will introduce a whole new generation of groups thinking they know how to build a better iOS/Android killer, and failing miserably at it.
I think fundamentally open source OS'es fail, period. The only successful versions of Linux/*nix have been relatively closed projects from big companies with deep pockets. About the only hope for Linux is to wrap it into some hardware platform like a game console, tablet, phone, etc which effectively closes it down. Linux is like Utopia, everybody wants it but it is fundamentally unattainable because it is a flawed concept unless you compromise.