We're not talking about Apple "changing their mind" - any business that doesn't "change its mind" as the competitive landscape changes is moribund.
What we are talking about is Apple's track record of *behaving in the manner you fear they will*. Specifically, where is their history of "locking down" a device that they've already sold you so that something you were previously able to do with that device is no longer possible? I'd say their history there is actually in the opposite direction - expanding the capabilities of the device from its initial state as they release new software.
If "I could, conceivably, change my mind on a whim" is the only measure we use to determine whether or not something will happen, then RMS could decide to abandon GNU and the FSF tomorrow, and Linus could decide to abandon Linux and work on Windows 8. Your devoted wife of 20 years could decide she wants to murder you tomorrow. That's all *possible*. The question is, is it *likely*? Is there a *reason* to expect that this outcome is likely, or at least more likely than some other alternative?
And if you can't cite a pattern of activity that makes you think this outcome is likely, then you're simply declaring somebody guilty and hand-waving away your burden of proof. It's paranoia, not a prediction.
Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, have you read your own post?
"Google gives people what they want." By what metric? Millions of users? Okay, let's use that.
"Apple doesn't give people what they want." By what metric? If we use the same measure you're using to judge Google, Apple is also *fabulously* successful at giving people what they want: millions of iPods, iPads, iPhones, and Mac OS X systems sold, and growing their share of the computer market at a much faster rate than most (all?) of their competition.
Apple's patent filing for something that mentions network bootup is being used as evidence for a claim that Apple is the number one threat to internet freedom. Google has already delivered a working model of ChromeOS, and has *every* reason to violate your privacy and freedom as it sees fit because it is in their fiduciary interest to do so, as an advertising company.
We're sounding the alarm about something that may never see the light of day beyond a patent filing, and saying "Huh, that sounds pretty cool," about the thing that is functional, and backed by a multi-billion-dollar advertising company.
The only difference I can see between the two is their immediate proximity (Google is a LOT closer to having something ready & working), and the fact that the one causing so much alarm is made by that icky "Apple" company.
So, as far as intellectual dishonesty - thanks for pointing out the mote in my eye. There's a beam in yours.
Sorry, but this makes no sense. What were the computer-illiterate doctors and lawyers running on their "best PCs available" if no geeks had any computers to write software with?
1) The release of the iOS SDK is an example of Apple *opening up* their platforms & devices with new features after the point of sale. This simply underscores my point.
2) And there *was* full Cocoa support with the Cocoa-Java bindings. They were extraordinarily underused, and so Apple made the decision to deprecate them.
3) You never had the option for 64-bit Carbon to begin with, they didn't "take that away" from you, they decided not to deliver that to you because they felt the time and money spent on that would be better spent elsewhere. There is a difference, and it's very important.
Unless you want to sit here and claim that you've been betrayed by every piece of software and library call that has ever been deprecated due to no use or obsolescence, none of these points have anything to do with Apple "exerting more control over a device you've already purchased just for the hell of it."
Perhaps that ideal is only really of interest to the subset of users who actually understand and enjoy tinkering with computers, and the vast majority of the market has been using general-purpose computers for some time that complicated & difficult to maintain, when they really *wanted* an appliance all along?
There will still be people who own, use, and tinker with general-purpose computers. They'll be the people who design, build, and program the appliances that the other 95% of the population uses.
What's funny to me is that everybody seems to be ringing the alarm over Apple, rather than Google, in this space. Apple creates the hardware, and uses the software (this supposed "cloud os") as a means to sell those devices. Google creates software (ChromeOS), and uses that software as a means for delivering ads to you - it doesn't make money from YOU, it makes money from *advertisers*. Who has more access, desire, and interest in being able to conveniently harvest all your data from the Cloud? Apple *could* move more into advertising than their foray into iAds, but their goal is first and foremost, to sell the devices. Google, on the other hand, exists to capture data about you & use that data to present you with ads.
I see. So you can't cite the ability of Apple "taking away" the ability to do something, just the fact that Apple didn't support all of the programming methods that you wanted to be able to use, starting the day the product was announced?
In fact, Apple *opened up* the iOS platform after it was announced, and allowed people to write native apps. Remember "web apps is all you get"? I do.
In fact, Apple *opened up* the iTunes store by pushing for no DRM on the music. Remember "can't play the songs I bought on iTunes on any device that's not an iPod?" I do.
In fact, Apple consistently pushes for *open standards* (which may not necessarily be the same as "free / FOSS" standards) in technology. Remember "HTML5 is a better standard than the proprietary Flash?" I do, and I'm damn sure you do too.
In fact, you're simply trolling, and have no answer to my request for a single citation where Apple has "locked down" a device further after its release. Remember where I asked you to provide a single one, and you couldn't? I do.
Considering Apple has explicitly stated that they have zero plans to force people to use the app store, perhaps the better question would be why you consider it even remotely likely that they will?
You're right, Apple doesn't have a good track record of providing "open" products, but Apple also doesn't have a track record of *ratcheting down restrictions on what you can do with your device after you've purchased it.*
Please cite examples of where Apple has "taken away" the ability to do something with a product after it was released that would lead you to conclude that this is not only possible, but likely?
So your argument is that "I'd rather have someone who's impaired than nobody?"
Except of course: 1) It's a false dichotomy, those are not your only two choices. 2) "impaired from being drunk" and "impaired from lack of sleep" and "impaired from being ill" are not all mutually exclusive conditions. In fact, it's far more likely that you'll get the doctor who's "had a drink, and didn't sleep well last night, and is starting to feel the effects of a cold." 3) You're never going to be told, "Sorry the entire fire department is drunk, can't help you," because they HAVE these rules and standards in place that are far more restrictive than the "ridiculous" drunk driving laws you're scoffing at. If you think they get to "choose" to work with no sleep, you should look up the term "crew rest," as it applies to pilots and other flight crew.
Guess what: Exactly one of the impairments you've cited is absolutely subject to the control of the person who is impaired - it's the alcohol, which will only *exacerbate* "all of the normal impairments" like sleepiness, distraction, and illness. I can't choose not to get a cold this week, or choose not to have a bout of insomnia. I can choose whether or not I have a double of Jack Daniels with a Guinness back and then getting behind the wheel of my car.
if that's what he does and it never causes a problem.
That's a pretty fucking GIANT conditional, there, champ, and a complete fucking dodge. Given that even low-by-legal-standards levels of alcohol in your blood *do* cause measurable degradation of various judgement, reasoning, and coordination skills, it's safe to say that "if it never causes a problem" is a condition that will *never* be met. Therefore, it's reasonable to demand that people refrain from drinking ANY alcohol while performing complex and/or dangerous tasks which could result in large amounts of damage and loss of life - like driving a car, like operating heavy machinery, like performing surgery, like flying an airplane. That the law lets you have a drink or two before driving at all is pretty permissive - doctors, pilots, police, and other people who keep you alive every day don't even get to have that much.
Once again, we are talking about *personal responsibility*. And the *responsible* thing to do is to not impair yourself further before performing complex and dangerous tasks. Anything else is purely rationalization made by somebody who wants to feel good about driving drunk or rail against some sort of perceived government encroachment into peoples' private lives by enacting public safety regulations.
We can't do much about these things though, can we? We just have to accept that drivers aren't always at their best. For the severe cases, there are negligence type charges that can be used.
Difference is - you can't do a lot to control whether or not you've had a bad day or restless sleep the night before, or have a cold. You *can* control whether or not you're piling additional impairment on top of that, and then getting behind the wheel by choosing not to drive if you've been drinking.
Just because we can't eliminate every risk that causes roughly the same level of impairment doesn't mean that we cannot punish people for *choosing* to impair themselves more than their base level of performance, and then *choosing* to operate their vehicle.
If you'd care to argue that there is some *other* level of blood alcohol that does not cause a measurable decrease in faculties that are necessary for driving, then I'd be happy to review the data you provide to support that assertion. Arguing that we should be ignoring it when people drive with measurable *voluntary & avoidable* impairment is just foolish.
Take it a step farther - are you going to start saying it's okay for airline pilots to have a few drinks and then get in the cockpit an hour later? Are you okay with your surgeon showing up for your angioplasty smelling like the martini he just finished? I mean, if.05-.08 isn't "really" impaired, we should have no problems with anybody showing up for any sort of task with a couple drinks in them... right? How about people who wear glasses - is it okay if they don't wear any corrective lenses while they drive? A little astigmatism or far-sightedness probably doesn't impair their ability any more than a couple drinks would!
This discussion was about "personal responsibility" - and the *responsible* thing to do is to not drive when you have impaired yourself - not to rationalize away why it's *probably* safe to drive, because after all, you "slept well last night, and half the people on the road are probably just as impaired as you are because of sleep deprivation and cold medicine." That's making excuses, not taking responsibility.
Yes, in fact, if you're being arrested, then being courteous, compliant and respectful while quietly asserting your rights is *exactly* what you should do. Mouthing off, resisting, trying to argue with the police, and other resistance will ONLY serve to hurt you and your case.
- You have the right to remain silent: exercise it, respectfully. - You have the right to a lawyer: exercise it, respectfully. - You have the right to refuse to consent to a search: exercise it, respectfully. - You have the right to leave *peacefully* if you're not under arrest: exercise it, respectfully.
If they are placing you under arrest, they are well within the scope of their power to use force to subdue you as part of that arrest, up to and including the lethal use of force, if they feel they are in danger from you. Don't give them an excuse to begin using force, or escalate whatever force they've already used.
Most police are not the jack-booted thugs you want to make them out to be. Most police are regular guys with families and friends just like you and me, and will respond well to someone who is friendly and polite. And just like you or I wouldn't respond well to somebody who came up to us at our office and started screaming obscenities, don't expect them to respond well when you do it to them at their workplace.
If you feel you're being arrested unreasonably, or that the police are abusing their powers, the *court room* is the time to argue that, not the *squad car*. Of course, you can behave like an obnoxious twat during an arrest if you like, just don't be surprised when the police treat you like you're an obnoxious twat, confiscate your beret & che guevara t-shirt, and show you no more courtesy or humaneness than the absolute minimum required of them by law.
This is different from the state forcing me to wear a seatbelt in a car or a helmet while on a motorcycle. In both cases, I'm only victimizing myself by being a dumbass.
Actually, I'd dispute that, unless you want to do away completely with emergency services, road crews, and public support for any health care for anybody.
If you don't wear a helmet and wipe out on your bike, you are much more likely to suffer a severe (crippling) brain injury that will leave you requiring significant medical/nursing care for the rest of whatever life remains in you.
If you're okay with saying "police and ambulance and fire don't need to respond when I wipe out on my bike and smash my head on the pavement," *then* you can say that your choice to not wear a helmet is only your own decision and affects nobody but you. As soon as there's an expectation that society will respond to - and pay for the response to - your injuries, then society gets a say in what sort of safety measures you need to take while riding your bike.
If you want the right to be a dumbass (and in point of fact, I believe everybody should - and that belief comes with all the objections to public-funding of numerous 'safety net' programs that it implies), you have to accept the consequences of being a dumbass as well.
8 million dollars will pay a few salaries for a year - rule of thumb at my work is each engineer costs 250-300k per year, in terms of space, equipment, salary, benefits, infrastructure. So, figure that pays a team of 10-12 people, with plenty of money left over for some hardware purchases for a prototype.
The summary is pretty clear that this is "to begin work on developing" a new system, it's not for the entire system - think of this as proof-of-concept phase. Somebody has a few smart ideas and says, "if we had some money, we could probably make something workable out of this." So DARPA gives them some cash, and says "show us what you can do."
If it's promising, it's likely it'll turn into a much larger program funded by the DoD procurement budget, rather than DARPA.
Who even "has a lawyer" until they're in trouble with the law?
Lots of people have some sort of a business relationship with a lawyer already - lawyers handle marriage/divorce paperwork, property purchases, financial arrangements, estate planning, contracts, and other stuff everyday for lots of people. Even if you don't have a defense attorney (and yeah, few people have one on speed dial), your everyday contracts guy could probably at least give you a referral to a firm he deals with who would be able to handle the case for you.
If you don't have an existing relationship with any lawyers, you can ask for a public defender, or you can ask family & friends for referrals, or you can simply throw a dart at the yellow pages and call whoever you pick. If you don't have a lawyer and can't find one quickly, probably your best bet is to get a public defender immediately to get some legal advice, and then replace him with your own attorney if (and when) the case proceeds.
Realistically, your "one phone call" (technically, I believe the law generally states that you're allowed to name a person who should be notified of your arrest - the phone call is frequently just a courtesy) should be to someone you know/trust - spouse, family, friend, business associate - to take care of things for you: call a lawyer, notify the rest of your family, make sure your house doesn't burn down, arrange for care for your kids/pets if necessary, call/email your boss to notify your workplace of your situation, etc. You MAY only get the one phone call, or they MAY only "notify" someone of your arrest and not allow you to contact them directly. If you're courteous & don't piss them off, they'll probably be courteous & friendly to you as well.
I'll one-up you: "don't let the *fundamentalist* idiots, regardless of where or how well they're schooled..."
The place where you got your science eductation is fairly orthogonal to whether or not you're a young-earth creationist. Bad education can happen anywhere, and it's quite easy for a fundamentalist to ignore facts presented to them as inconvenient conspiracies.
Your rights, taken from the ACLU web site: 1) You have the right to remain silent. If you wish to exercise that right, state that out loud: "I am exercising my right to remain silent, and will not answer that question, sir." 2) You have the right to refuse to consent to a search of yourself, your car, or your home. Say so: "I do not consent to you searching my person, my vehicle, or my home, sir." 3) If you are not under arrest, you have the right to calmly leave. "Am I under arrest? If not, I would like to leave now, sir." 4) If you ARE under arrest, you have the right to a lawyer. Ask for one immediately: "I would like to speak with my lawyer immediately, sir."
Now, the police CAN ask you to hand over the passcode. You can decline, and exercise your right to remain silent. They can also get a court order compelling you to turn over the passcode. If you elect to remain silent at that point, you may be subject to penalties including contempt of court, so you should be very certain that you consult with your lawyer before you respond to any request which is a court order.
Here's the thing: If you're arrested, you go with it until you get your lawyer. You can remain silent, but being argumentative, uncooperative (beyond the clear boundaries of your rights), or attempting to use your Slashdot Legal Training (tm) on the police during the course of your arrest and booking is just going to make them view you as an uncooperative troublemaker, and then it's your word against theirs as to whether or not you got that black eye because you shoved a cop or because you just pissed one off. In front of a court is where you get your chance to play lawyer, or let an actual lawyer do the job for you. Being disrespectful, resistant, and uncooperative during an arrest will just make the arrest process more difficult. And let's be very clear: For every story you hear of "police brutality," there are hundreds more arrests that are made without that sort of abuse and overreach. Odds are in your favor that being arrested will not result in some horrible gang-rape scene, but you CAN make the police a LOT less friendly to you by being a pain in the ass and trying to use your many hours of CSI-watching to lawyer your way out of the arrest.
And please explain how the laws are ridiculous when there are studies that demonstrate the impairment of even.03 BAC?
You don't have to be personally affected, but you don't get to hand-wave away the actual measurements that show that there's impairment at.03 (lower than the GGP poster's "ridiculous.05 BAC" comment, incidentally) just because those facts happen to contradict your opinion.
Look at the ridiculous drinking and driving laws because people can't take responsibility for their behaviour.
At blood alcohol levels greater than.03, there is a measurable impairment of concentration. As your BAC level rises from there, impairment begins to gradually affect reasoning, depth perception, peripheral vision, and glare recovery (the speed with which your eyes react to flashes of bright light). Beyond.10 (well above the legal limit), reflexes, gross motor control, and reaction time are all significantly increased, but those effects are still felt to smaller degrees with lower BAC levels.
At.05 BAC, you are demonstrably, measurably impaired. I don't care how steady you say you are, I don't care how well you "hold your liquor," you are impaired. Maybe it's a quarter of a second slower reflex. Maybe it's slightly impaired depth perception that makes you say, "I can totally make it through this intersection before that yellow turns red." I don't care what it is, you are impaired, and therefore, the law is absolutely reasonable in saying that you shouldn't be driving in such a condition.
If you truly cared about "taking personal responsibility," you wouldn't drive in an impaired state. You would arrange for a designated driver, or a hotel room within walking distance if you wanted to drink without worries, or you would limit your intake of alcohol or call a taxi when you realized you hadn't. Personal responsibility involves realizing that when you drink, your judgement is one of the first things that is impaired, and that's exactly what you're relying on to decide whether or not you're "okay to drive".
So in summary: fuck you. I hope the nanny state mandates interlock devices in every vehicle to prevent you from deciding that you feel just fine and are totally personally responsible, as if that means you are somehow magically exempt from running someone over due to your impairment. Because make no mistake, if your BAC is registering.05, then you are, measurably impaired, even if your impaired judgement lets you believe you're not.
How much of the cost of the newspaper is tied up in the printing & distribution, versus the amount tied up in paying the salaries of the people who create the content in the newspaper? My feeling is it's a rather shockingly low percentage of the overall cost of running the magazine - from what I've read about the Book & CD markets, large-run pressings cost in the range of pennies-per-unit once the master is completed, and that most of the cost of producing that master has to do with the creative process, and not the duplication.
So, let's assume that the same is true of magazine production, even if the percentages are higher. What about digital distribution justifies the sudden "it should be free" declaration people love to make about anything that comes in a digital format? Salaries still have to be paid - writers, layout & design specialists, graphic artists, copy editors, ad execs, mailroom clerks, secretaries... those jobs all exist still, even if the publisher doesn't have to pay printing & mailing costs. So why would anybody reasonably assume that digital distribution should immediately equate to "free to consumers"?
The man was the "most powerful man on earth" for 8 years. He is married to one of the currently-most-powerful women on earth. People pay motivational speakers hundred of thousands of dollars to speak... why would you think that someone with Bill Clinton's resume would be unable to command similar fees?
I was never a huge fan of Pres. Clinton - he was a decent president, but I disagreed with some of his policies and views. And even with that, if you offered me the opportunity to sit down and talk with him, or hear him speak? I'd take it. The man has lived an extraordinary life by any measure you care to name, he's intelligent and well-spoken. Even though - as I noted - I might disagree with some of his views, I don't think he's a "bad person" because we'd disagree, and I'd welcome an opportunity for a dialogue, or even just the opportunity to hear a little more about why he believes what he does.
Your comment smacks of partisanship - anybody who disagrees with you must be getting money from foreign agents as a way of saying "thanks for your consideration when you were in office"? Without some serious evidence to back that up, that's a pretty outrageous claim.
Problem is, they are *rape* *allegations,* as the Swedish legal system defines "rape allegations." He is being investigated, and one of the charges they are investigating falls under the category of "rape" in Swedish law.
That a bunch of Slashdotters can't distinguish between "ZOMG RAPE!!!1111!!!!!!ONE!!!!111!" (the loosely defined colloquial term, with all it's nasty negative emotional implications & baggage) and "rape" (as a legal term & definition) isn't surprising, but it does muddy the issue. Legally speaking, "rape" is not necessarily the violent experience that everybody has decided is the only thing that rape can be. Legally speaking, rape is about consent - which is why statutory rape is still rape; if one partner is legally incapable of 'consenting,' then it does not matter even if they're young lovers who absolutely think the world of each other, in the eyes of the law, that is still rape.
One of the allegations is that he had sex with one of the women while she was asleep, and that he did so without a condom. That incident, if charges are brought as a result of it, would fall under the Swedish 'rape' law, and would probably fall into the lowest category of "minor rape" under Swedish law, which doesn't even carry a minimum sentence. But make no mistake: your disagreement with the legal definition of "rape" doesn't mean that this allegation "isn't really" rape. It may not be the violent brutal assault YOU imagine when you hear the word "rape," but it most certainly is a rape allegation, and a rape conviction if he's found guilty.
No, that is not the logical conclusion to be drawn from this line of thought. The logical conclusion is that "some secrets are necessary, and therefore not all secrets are bad."
The logical extreme you see as the end of this line of thinking is known as a reductio ad absurdum fallacy. The conclusion you suggest is not the only one which may be reached, and you cannot show a logically consistent chain of decisions that would lead from "sometimes secrets are necessary," to "openness is inherently bad."
You can, in fact, *only* reach that conclusion by making several illogical, unrealistic, and patently unreasonable assumptions.
Slashdot Mirror
We're not talking about Apple "changing their mind" - any business that doesn't "change its mind" as the competitive landscape changes is moribund.
What we are talking about is Apple's track record of *behaving in the manner you fear they will*. Specifically, where is their history of "locking down" a device that they've already sold you so that something you were previously able to do with that device is no longer possible? I'd say their history there is actually in the opposite direction - expanding the capabilities of the device from its initial state as they release new software.
If "I could, conceivably, change my mind on a whim" is the only measure we use to determine whether or not something will happen, then RMS could decide to abandon GNU and the FSF tomorrow, and Linus could decide to abandon Linux and work on Windows 8. Your devoted wife of 20 years could decide she wants to murder you tomorrow. That's all *possible*. The question is, is it *likely*? Is there a *reason* to expect that this outcome is likely, or at least more likely than some other alternative?
And if you can't cite a pattern of activity that makes you think this outcome is likely, then you're simply declaring somebody guilty and hand-waving away your burden of proof. It's paranoia, not a prediction.
Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, have you read your own post?
"Google gives people what they want." By what metric? Millions of users? Okay, let's use that.
"Apple doesn't give people what they want." By what metric? If we use the same measure you're using to judge Google, Apple is also *fabulously* successful at giving people what they want: millions of iPods, iPads, iPhones, and Mac OS X systems sold, and growing their share of the computer market at a much faster rate than most (all?) of their competition.
Apple's patent filing for something that mentions network bootup is being used as evidence for a claim that Apple is the number one threat to internet freedom. Google has already delivered a working model of ChromeOS, and has *every* reason to violate your privacy and freedom as it sees fit because it is in their fiduciary interest to do so, as an advertising company.
We're sounding the alarm about something that may never see the light of day beyond a patent filing, and saying "Huh, that sounds pretty cool," about the thing that is functional, and backed by a multi-billion-dollar advertising company.
The only difference I can see between the two is their immediate proximity (Google is a LOT closer to having something ready & working), and the fact that the one causing so much alarm is made by that icky "Apple" company.
So, as far as intellectual dishonesty - thanks for pointing out the mote in my eye. There's a beam in yours.
Sorry, but this makes no sense. What were the computer-illiterate doctors and lawyers running on their "best PCs available" if no geeks had any computers to write software with?
1) The release of the iOS SDK is an example of Apple *opening up* their platforms & devices with new features after the point of sale. This simply underscores my point.
2) And there *was* full Cocoa support with the Cocoa-Java bindings. They were extraordinarily underused, and so Apple made the decision to deprecate them.
3) You never had the option for 64-bit Carbon to begin with, they didn't "take that away" from you, they decided not to deliver that to you because they felt the time and money spent on that would be better spent elsewhere. There is a difference, and it's very important.
Unless you want to sit here and claim that you've been betrayed by every piece of software and library call that has ever been deprecated due to no use or obsolescence, none of these points have anything to do with Apple "exerting more control over a device you've already purchased just for the hell of it."
Perhaps that ideal is only really of interest to the subset of users who actually understand and enjoy tinkering with computers, and the vast majority of the market has been using general-purpose computers for some time that complicated & difficult to maintain, when they really *wanted* an appliance all along?
There will still be people who own, use, and tinker with general-purpose computers. They'll be the people who design, build, and program the appliances that the other 95% of the population uses.
What's funny to me is that everybody seems to be ringing the alarm over Apple, rather than Google, in this space. Apple creates the hardware, and uses the software (this supposed "cloud os") as a means to sell those devices. Google creates software (ChromeOS), and uses that software as a means for delivering ads to you - it doesn't make money from YOU, it makes money from *advertisers*. Who has more access, desire, and interest in being able to conveniently harvest all your data from the Cloud? Apple *could* move more into advertising than their foray into iAds, but their goal is first and foremost, to sell the devices. Google, on the other hand, exists to capture data about you & use that data to present you with ads.
I see. So you can't cite the ability of Apple "taking away" the ability to do something, just the fact that Apple didn't support all of the programming methods that you wanted to be able to use, starting the day the product was announced?
In fact, Apple *opened up* the iOS platform after it was announced, and allowed people to write native apps. Remember "web apps is all you get"? I do.
In fact, Apple *opened up* the iTunes store by pushing for no DRM on the music. Remember "can't play the songs I bought on iTunes on any device that's not an iPod?" I do.
In fact, Apple consistently pushes for *open standards* (which may not necessarily be the same as "free / FOSS" standards) in technology. Remember "HTML5 is a better standard than the proprietary Flash?" I do, and I'm damn sure you do too.
In fact, you're simply trolling, and have no answer to my request for a single citation where Apple has "locked down" a device further after its release. Remember where I asked you to provide a single one, and you couldn't? I do.
Considering Apple has explicitly stated that they have zero plans to force people to use the app store, perhaps the better question would be why you consider it even remotely likely that they will?
You're right, Apple doesn't have a good track record of providing "open" products, but Apple also doesn't have a track record of *ratcheting down restrictions on what you can do with your device after you've purchased it.*
Please cite examples of where Apple has "taken away" the ability to do something with a product after it was released that would lead you to conclude that this is not only possible, but likely?
Woah, Doc. This is heavy.
Right, because covering up a suicide by making it look like you murdered the person is the only *sensible* way to protect your reputation.
So your argument is that "I'd rather have someone who's impaired than nobody?"
Except of course:
1) It's a false dichotomy, those are not your only two choices.
2) "impaired from being drunk" and "impaired from lack of sleep" and "impaired from being ill" are not all mutually exclusive conditions. In fact, it's far more likely that you'll get the doctor who's "had a drink, and didn't sleep well last night, and is starting to feel the effects of a cold."
3) You're never going to be told, "Sorry the entire fire department is drunk, can't help you," because they HAVE these rules and standards in place that are far more restrictive than the "ridiculous" drunk driving laws you're scoffing at. If you think they get to "choose" to work with no sleep, you should look up the term "crew rest," as it applies to pilots and other flight crew.
Guess what: Exactly one of the impairments you've cited is absolutely subject to the control of the person who is impaired - it's the alcohol, which will only *exacerbate* "all of the normal impairments" like sleepiness, distraction, and illness. I can't choose not to get a cold this week, or choose not to have a bout of insomnia. I can choose whether or not I have a double of Jack Daniels with a Guinness back and then getting behind the wheel of my car.
That's a pretty fucking GIANT conditional, there, champ, and a complete fucking dodge. Given that even low-by-legal-standards levels of alcohol in your blood *do* cause measurable degradation of various judgement, reasoning, and coordination skills, it's safe to say that "if it never causes a problem" is a condition that will *never* be met. Therefore, it's reasonable to demand that people refrain from drinking ANY alcohol while performing complex and/or dangerous tasks which could result in large amounts of damage and loss of life - like driving a car, like operating heavy machinery, like performing surgery, like flying an airplane. That the law lets you have a drink or two before driving at all is pretty permissive - doctors, pilots, police, and other people who keep you alive every day don't even get to have that much.
Once again, we are talking about *personal responsibility*. And the *responsible* thing to do is to not impair yourself further before performing complex and dangerous tasks. Anything else is purely rationalization made by somebody who wants to feel good about driving drunk or rail against some sort of perceived government encroachment into peoples' private lives by enacting public safety regulations.
Difference is - you can't do a lot to control whether or not you've had a bad day or restless sleep the night before, or have a cold. You *can* control whether or not you're piling additional impairment on top of that, and then getting behind the wheel by choosing not to drive if you've been drinking.
Just because we can't eliminate every risk that causes roughly the same level of impairment doesn't mean that we cannot punish people for *choosing* to impair themselves more than their base level of performance, and then *choosing* to operate their vehicle.
If you'd care to argue that there is some *other* level of blood alcohol that does not cause a measurable decrease in faculties that are necessary for driving, then I'd be happy to review the data you provide to support that assertion. Arguing that we should be ignoring it when people drive with measurable *voluntary & avoidable* impairment is just foolish.
Take it a step farther - are you going to start saying it's okay for airline pilots to have a few drinks and then get in the cockpit an hour later? Are you okay with your surgeon showing up for your angioplasty smelling like the martini he just finished? I mean, if .05-.08 isn't "really" impaired, we should have no problems with anybody showing up for any sort of task with a couple drinks in them... right? How about people who wear glasses - is it okay if they don't wear any corrective lenses while they drive? A little astigmatism or far-sightedness probably doesn't impair their ability any more than a couple drinks would!
This discussion was about "personal responsibility" - and the *responsible* thing to do is to not drive when you have impaired yourself - not to rationalize away why it's *probably* safe to drive, because after all, you "slept well last night, and half the people on the road are probably just as impaired as you are because of sleep deprivation and cold medicine." That's making excuses, not taking responsibility.
Yes, in fact, if you're being arrested, then being courteous, compliant and respectful while quietly asserting your rights is *exactly* what you should do. Mouthing off, resisting, trying to argue with the police, and other resistance will ONLY serve to hurt you and your case.
- You have the right to remain silent: exercise it, respectfully.
- You have the right to a lawyer: exercise it, respectfully.
- You have the right to refuse to consent to a search: exercise it, respectfully.
- You have the right to leave *peacefully* if you're not under arrest: exercise it, respectfully.
If they are placing you under arrest, they are well within the scope of their power to use force to subdue you as part of that arrest, up to and including the lethal use of force, if they feel they are in danger from you. Don't give them an excuse to begin using force, or escalate whatever force they've already used.
Most police are not the jack-booted thugs you want to make them out to be. Most police are regular guys with families and friends just like you and me, and will respond well to someone who is friendly and polite. And just like you or I wouldn't respond well to somebody who came up to us at our office and started screaming obscenities, don't expect them to respond well when you do it to them at their workplace.
If you feel you're being arrested unreasonably, or that the police are abusing their powers, the *court room* is the time to argue that, not the *squad car*. Of course, you can behave like an obnoxious twat during an arrest if you like, just don't be surprised when the police treat you like you're an obnoxious twat, confiscate your beret & che guevara t-shirt, and show you no more courtesy or humaneness than the absolute minimum required of them by law.
Actually, I'd dispute that, unless you want to do away completely with emergency services, road crews, and public support for any health care for anybody.
If you don't wear a helmet and wipe out on your bike, you are much more likely to suffer a severe (crippling) brain injury that will leave you requiring significant medical/nursing care for the rest of whatever life remains in you.
If you're okay with saying "police and ambulance and fire don't need to respond when I wipe out on my bike and smash my head on the pavement," *then* you can say that your choice to not wear a helmet is only your own decision and affects nobody but you. As soon as there's an expectation that society will respond to - and pay for the response to - your injuries, then society gets a say in what sort of safety measures you need to take while riding your bike.
If you want the right to be a dumbass (and in point of fact, I believe everybody should - and that belief comes with all the objections to public-funding of numerous 'safety net' programs that it implies), you have to accept the consequences of being a dumbass as well.
8 million dollars will pay a few salaries for a year - rule of thumb at my work is each engineer costs 250-300k per year, in terms of space, equipment, salary, benefits, infrastructure. So, figure that pays a team of 10-12 people, with plenty of money left over for some hardware purchases for a prototype.
The summary is pretty clear that this is "to begin work on developing" a new system, it's not for the entire system - think of this as proof-of-concept phase. Somebody has a few smart ideas and says, "if we had some money, we could probably make something workable out of this." So DARPA gives them some cash, and says "show us what you can do."
If it's promising, it's likely it'll turn into a much larger program funded by the DoD procurement budget, rather than DARPA.
Lots of people have some sort of a business relationship with a lawyer already - lawyers handle marriage/divorce paperwork, property purchases, financial arrangements, estate planning, contracts, and other stuff everyday for lots of people. Even if you don't have a defense attorney (and yeah, few people have one on speed dial), your everyday contracts guy could probably at least give you a referral to a firm he deals with who would be able to handle the case for you.
If you don't have an existing relationship with any lawyers, you can ask for a public defender, or you can ask family & friends for referrals, or you can simply throw a dart at the yellow pages and call whoever you pick. If you don't have a lawyer and can't find one quickly, probably your best bet is to get a public defender immediately to get some legal advice, and then replace him with your own attorney if (and when) the case proceeds.
Realistically, your "one phone call" (technically, I believe the law generally states that you're allowed to name a person who should be notified of your arrest - the phone call is frequently just a courtesy) should be to someone you know/trust - spouse, family, friend, business associate - to take care of things for you: call a lawyer, notify the rest of your family, make sure your house doesn't burn down, arrange for care for your kids/pets if necessary, call/email your boss to notify your workplace of your situation, etc. You MAY only get the one phone call, or they MAY only "notify" someone of your arrest and not allow you to contact them directly. If you're courteous & don't piss them off, they'll probably be courteous & friendly to you as well.
I'll one-up you: "don't let the *fundamentalist* idiots, regardless of where or how well they're schooled..."
The place where you got your science eductation is fairly orthogonal to whether or not you're a young-earth creationist. Bad education can happen anywhere, and it's quite easy for a fundamentalist to ignore facts presented to them as inconvenient conspiracies.
Your rights, taken from the ACLU web site:
1) You have the right to remain silent. If you wish to exercise that right, state that out loud: "I am exercising my right to remain silent, and will not answer that question, sir."
2) You have the right to refuse to consent to a search of yourself, your car, or your home. Say so: "I do not consent to you searching my person, my vehicle, or my home, sir."
3) If you are not under arrest, you have the right to calmly leave. "Am I under arrest? If not, I would like to leave now, sir."
4) If you ARE under arrest, you have the right to a lawyer. Ask for one immediately: "I would like to speak with my lawyer immediately, sir."
Now, the police CAN ask you to hand over the passcode. You can decline, and exercise your right to remain silent. They can also get a court order compelling you to turn over the passcode. If you elect to remain silent at that point, you may be subject to penalties including contempt of court, so you should be very certain that you consult with your lawyer before you respond to any request which is a court order.
Here's the thing: If you're arrested, you go with it until you get your lawyer. You can remain silent, but being argumentative, uncooperative (beyond the clear boundaries of your rights), or attempting to use your Slashdot Legal Training (tm) on the police during the course of your arrest and booking is just going to make them view you as an uncooperative troublemaker, and then it's your word against theirs as to whether or not you got that black eye because you shoved a cop or because you just pissed one off. In front of a court is where you get your chance to play lawyer, or let an actual lawyer do the job for you. Being disrespectful, resistant, and uncooperative during an arrest will just make the arrest process more difficult. And let's be very clear: For every story you hear of "police brutality," there are hundreds more arrests that are made without that sort of abuse and overreach. Odds are in your favor that being arrested will not result in some horrible gang-rape scene, but you CAN make the police a LOT less friendly to you by being a pain in the ass and trying to use your many hours of CSI-watching to lawyer your way out of the arrest.
And please explain how the laws are ridiculous when there are studies that demonstrate the impairment of even .03 BAC?
You don't have to be personally affected, but you don't get to hand-wave away the actual measurements that show that there's impairment at .03 (lower than the GGP poster's "ridiculous .05 BAC" comment, incidentally) just because those facts happen to contradict your opinion.
Then I guess you don't have to ever worry about the "ridiculous drinking and driving laws" that you were on such a tear about, do you?
At blood alcohol levels greater than .03, there is a measurable impairment of concentration. As your BAC level rises from there, impairment begins to gradually affect reasoning, depth perception, peripheral vision, and glare recovery (the speed with which your eyes react to flashes of bright light). Beyond .10 (well above the legal limit), reflexes, gross motor control, and reaction time are all significantly increased, but those effects are still felt to smaller degrees with lower BAC levels.
At .05 BAC, you are demonstrably, measurably impaired. I don't care how steady you say you are, I don't care how well you "hold your liquor," you are impaired. Maybe it's a quarter of a second slower reflex. Maybe it's slightly impaired depth perception that makes you say, "I can totally make it through this intersection before that yellow turns red." I don't care what it is, you are impaired, and therefore, the law is absolutely reasonable in saying that you shouldn't be driving in such a condition.
If you truly cared about "taking personal responsibility," you wouldn't drive in an impaired state. You would arrange for a designated driver, or a hotel room within walking distance if you wanted to drink without worries, or you would limit your intake of alcohol or call a taxi when you realized you hadn't. Personal responsibility involves realizing that when you drink, your judgement is one of the first things that is impaired, and that's exactly what you're relying on to decide whether or not you're "okay to drive".
So in summary: fuck you. I hope the nanny state mandates interlock devices in every vehicle to prevent you from deciding that you feel just fine and are totally personally responsible, as if that means you are somehow magically exempt from running someone over due to your impairment. Because make no mistake, if your BAC is registering .05, then you are, measurably impaired, even if your impaired judgement lets you believe you're not.
How much of the cost of the newspaper is tied up in the printing & distribution, versus the amount tied up in paying the salaries of the people who create the content in the newspaper? My feeling is it's a rather shockingly low percentage of the overall cost of running the magazine - from what I've read about the Book & CD markets, large-run pressings cost in the range of pennies-per-unit once the master is completed, and that most of the cost of producing that master has to do with the creative process, and not the duplication.
So, let's assume that the same is true of magazine production, even if the percentages are higher. What about digital distribution justifies the sudden "it should be free" declaration people love to make about anything that comes in a digital format? Salaries still have to be paid - writers, layout & design specialists, graphic artists, copy editors, ad execs, mailroom clerks, secretaries... those jobs all exist still, even if the publisher doesn't have to pay printing & mailing costs. So why would anybody reasonably assume that digital distribution should immediately equate to "free to consumers"?
Really? I can name a dozen friends who are just waiting for the iPhone to be available on Verizon so they can ditch their Android phones.
My anecdote nullifies your anecdote. It's a push.
The man was the "most powerful man on earth" for 8 years. He is married to one of the currently-most-powerful women on earth. People pay motivational speakers hundred of thousands of dollars to speak... why would you think that someone with Bill Clinton's resume would be unable to command similar fees?
I was never a huge fan of Pres. Clinton - he was a decent president, but I disagreed with some of his policies and views. And even with that, if you offered me the opportunity to sit down and talk with him, or hear him speak? I'd take it. The man has lived an extraordinary life by any measure you care to name, he's intelligent and well-spoken. Even though - as I noted - I might disagree with some of his views, I don't think he's a "bad person" because we'd disagree, and I'd welcome an opportunity for a dialogue, or even just the opportunity to hear a little more about why he believes what he does.
Your comment smacks of partisanship - anybody who disagrees with you must be getting money from foreign agents as a way of saying "thanks for your consideration when you were in office"? Without some serious evidence to back that up, that's a pretty outrageous claim.
Problem is, they are *rape* *allegations,* as the Swedish legal system defines "rape allegations." He is being investigated, and one of the charges they are investigating falls under the category of "rape" in Swedish law.
That a bunch of Slashdotters can't distinguish between "ZOMG RAPE!!!1111!!!!!!ONE!!!!111!" (the loosely defined colloquial term, with all it's nasty negative emotional implications & baggage) and "rape" (as a legal term & definition) isn't surprising, but it does muddy the issue. Legally speaking, "rape" is not necessarily the violent experience that everybody has decided is the only thing that rape can be. Legally speaking, rape is about consent - which is why statutory rape is still rape; if one partner is legally incapable of 'consenting,' then it does not matter even if they're young lovers who absolutely think the world of each other, in the eyes of the law, that is still rape.
One of the allegations is that he had sex with one of the women while she was asleep, and that he did so without a condom. That incident, if charges are brought as a result of it, would fall under the Swedish 'rape' law, and would probably fall into the lowest category of "minor rape" under Swedish law, which doesn't even carry a minimum sentence. But make no mistake: your disagreement with the legal definition of "rape" doesn't mean that this allegation "isn't really" rape. It may not be the violent brutal assault YOU imagine when you hear the word "rape," but it most certainly is a rape allegation, and a rape conviction if he's found guilty.
No, that is not the logical conclusion to be drawn from this line of thought. The logical conclusion is that "some secrets are necessary, and therefore not all secrets are bad."
The logical extreme you see as the end of this line of thinking is known as a reductio ad absurdum fallacy. The conclusion you suggest is not the only one which may be reached, and you cannot show a logically consistent chain of decisions that would lead from "sometimes secrets are necessary," to "openness is inherently bad."
You can, in fact, *only* reach that conclusion by making several illogical, unrealistic, and patently unreasonable assumptions.