The issue isn't that it's not possible, the issue is that HTML5 seems to tend towards HTML markup over XML markup.
Effectively it pushes bad practice as standard because there really is no benefit to HTML markup other than the ability to write sloppy markup, which is stupid.
People publish using tools nowadays, leave markup to the professionals (not that writing well formed XML is hardly a difficult job). If people can't understand how to write well formed XML markup then they've got no chance of understanding CSS and Javascript so might as well give up and use a web app to publish for them anyway.
Best to support the people who actually write web apps to make it easier to write better web apps, than to support sloppy developers who use HTML markup "because it's easier".
Yep, it did make me chuckle the other day when I saw the French were raising the retirement age to 62- poor sods, however will they cope?
Here in the UK though if you've seen the comments from the unions their attitude is no different- according to the unions in the UK we can't make cuts and we can't raise taxes. I'd love to know what planet the unions are on, I'd love to know where exactly they think we're going to find £150bn without cutting or raising taxes. That's a common trait amongst unions it seems though, they're often more than happy to whine and moan about everything, but they never actually offer any alternative solutions to the problems, just claim the solutions everyone else comes up with can't work.
Yeah, it's extremely simple but as I say, it demonstrates well the fact that if things get bad it's easy for Britain to make money.
If the country was on the verge of bankruptcy, would saving a phenomenal £60bn at the expense of £30 a week less state pension really be that bad? It'd certainly be better than the alternative of increased debt payments and an eventual inability to afford any state pension at all! The point is it demonstrates that Britain has got plenty it can cut, and that's a good thing. It's when you're both bankrupt and have nothing to cut either that you need to worry.
"the UK one is caused because the country hasn't actually produced anything in years"
Yeah, except the UK is still sitting at about the 5th to 7th largest economy in the world by manufacturing output and in the top 5 for service sector output. Contrary to popular belief, it's really only it's position in agriculture on the world stage that's declined.
That's quite an achievement for a country that hasn't produced anything in years.
No, Britain's problems were caused by it's reliance on the service sector in the face of the US' credit crisis in which it was deeply involved.
Britain doesn't have a problem with money or assets per-se, it has so many programs it could cancel (i.e. Trident) if push came to shove to pay it's debts, the issue is that the previous government over-extended public sector, such that we have more public sector expenditure than we can realistically afford. Britain's pain is merely going to have to be a scaling back of the public sector programs we have, coupled with higher taxes to pay for the rest of it- this isn't Britain's only option, because as I say, Britain has so many schemes and so much expenditure and so forth still that it could cut if it really needed to it's really not at much risk.
In contrast, countries like Greece don't have big things like nuclear weapons programs with money set aside for that they can cut now that it's hit crunch time. The same goes for Spain and so forth.
So effectively, like the US and France, whilst Britain doesn't have a lot of actual cash floating round, it does have a lot of expenditure planned, or assets to sell off should things get really bad.
In other words, Britain, like the US and France could solve it's financial situation tommorrow if the population was willing to accept the loss of some massively important albeit luxury programmes people have gotten used to having such as Trident, new aircraft carriers, child tax credits, free care for the elderly and that sort of thing. Of course, that wouldn't be pleasant for the people who depend on those schemes, which is why the government is trying to solve the debt problem a bit more slowly, and a bit more carefully.
Effectively, it has simply deemed that the UK video game industry tax relief is one of those small things that can be cut without the vast majority of the population actually giving a flying fuck, and without any real harm to the economy.
Conveniently the BBC have produced this tool that illustrates the rough point quite well:
Try moving the welfare slider to see what I mean- in one fell swoop most the deficit could be eliminated, but the key is to do it with least impact on people possible.
I'd agree with you if you didn't have Castro in your list. The only reason he's been so defiant for so long is because everywhere he turns the CIA has tried to stick a knife in him one way or another.
America is as much responsible for Cuba's problems as Castro is, and it's easily a situation that could've been long resolved by more progressive and positive policies towards Cuba. Had the US lifted the embargo on Cuba about 30 years ago, Cuba would almost certainly be so Americanised now due to it's proximity with the US and the inevitable flood in of American products and people that the US would be able to consider it almost just another state.
There's also the point that people like Saddam Hussein clearly actually made Iraq a safer place with less atrocities commited than America's installation of democracy has.
Kim Jong-Il is a problem that'll solve itself one way or another too, he's old, he's dying. War may be necessary depending on the leader that replaces him, but it also may not, it may lead to an opening up of North Korea. Iran is a ticking time bomb too, there's so much anti-government sentiment that it's going to topple at some point or another.
In terms of Bashir, he's only hanging on because other African nations are supporting him, so any military action would stir further problems in those nations. The ideal solution is to try and cut his support politically and then he'll fall too.
Sure war is sometimes inevitable, sure change can take an awful long time, but as Iraq demonstrated, even a few thousand people a year being killed through extra-judicial killings is small fry compared to the scale of the killings we're seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan. War is generally only an option though when you've reached the point that not enough people support your viewpoint but you want to push it anyway. Even Hitler could've been stopped if the rest of Europe, the US and so forth had stood against him earlier on than they did, but many even outright supported him. The US didn't even care about Hitler until the war was already half over, let alone dealing with him during his rise.
Same reason they post pieces that are almost entirely or entirely made up from the likes of The Register, Fox News, and The Daily Mail and the likes sometimes too.
Reposting made up shit manages to get Slashdot lots of hits too.
The type who tries to look smart by pointing out that the term "I could care less" makes no sense when taken out face value, but unfortunately fail to realise it's a term commonly used in a sarcastic tone in some parts of the world such as Britain, with the implication of the sarcasm being that they couldn't care less.
It's a perfectly valid term when you understand the context, but I realise that if you live somewhere where people don't tend to use that term it might appear to be a mere failure to correctly use the English language, it's not. Hopefully this will put your mind to rest when you see it in future and the grammar nazi in you can now sleep well at night!
It's not even new ground. Britain went to war in Iraq with the US however misguided that venture was and lost some troops to friendly fire from a US A10, and the US refused to even release the gun camera to the British coroner who did the investigation and inquiry into the deaths to see if anything could be learnt and mistakes avoided in future, there was no talk of prosecuting the pilot or anything.
Yet, the US wouldn't even do that- not even when one of their pilots killed troops of one of their allies that had stood by them in going to war.
It just seems to be the US military way- if you fuck up, cover it up. Learning from mistakes? trying to avoid similar mistakes in future? what does that mean? This probably goes a long way to explaining why the US military has such an atrocious friendly fire record in the first place. Perhaps if they got over it and started acknowledging and properly investigating mistakes instead of covering them up then they'd have less to even need to think about covering up in the first place.
The link in question works using a browser feature that uploads information about you such as your IP, access points near you, and that sort of thing. This is why Google was farming access point data when they did street view.
So in the case of even these most intrusive things, the GP I was responding to is wrong regarding warnings, because your browser warns you. My comments were really targetted towards general IP geolocation that doesn't depend on browser uploads.
Personally I'd just keep browser based geolocation disabled, and it is by default in Firefox and I believe other browsers just like things such as password storage are.
"Who tells you that might be happening if you have an Android phone? Or if you install a browser that enables the geolocation services of HTML 5 on your PC (eg http://html5demos.com/geo )? No one. They don't have to."
Wrong. Each time you install an Android app, before accepting installation you've given a run down of what permissions the app requires, this includes things like internet access, or making phone calls, but also includes things like judging your rough location using cell masts etc., or judging your fine grained location using GPS. Regarding Google services doing geolocation, that's an option you'll get first time you turn your phone on and can easily change in the menus later if you choose if it has the Google apps pre-installed. I'm not sure why you think they can't stop it on Android, because Android has a marketplace too and all but the most technical users who know the risks anyway use this path for installing apps.
As for IP based geolocation on a PC, frankly I could care less. Even if I'm not using a VPN or something the best they can do is judge my location to be in an area large enough to contain a population of 20 million people. Apart from telling my country that's largely useless information, and that's all it's really used for as it's all that it can be used for, certainly it's not really enough to track you as an individual over and above what your IP already allows.
I'm not sure what a random selected news feed is meant to prove. That it's not involved in the majorities of stories on Slashdot? That's fair enough.
The problem is that it's activities are still reported to a degree grossly disproportionate to their marketshare in many given sectors, and also despite the fact that other companies news simply does not get reported. Case in point, what percentage of Android, Symbian, or Blackberry handsets have had news stories posted on Slashdot on release in relation to the percentage of new iPhone models? What percentage get multiple stories about a new handset and it's features?
So the GP is really quite right, we do hear about every single fucking thing Apple does, to the detriment of the movements of other, sometimes bigger, more important players not having anything posted at all about their products and actions even when they're more worthy.
It's not just Slashdot that's guilty, even usually respectable sites like the BBC do the same- advertise every new Apple product for them whilst completely ignoring competitors, sometimes better, more innovative products- contrary to popular belief Apple does not hold a monopoly on innovation.
Even 2 stories in a list whose categories stem pretty much every possible technology, politics, and science new story in the world is grossly disproportionate. Oh, and I agree, yes, Google get far more than their fair share too.
I'm still a little lost, perhaps it's one of those things that isn't obvious until you've used it. But what advantage does creating content as a Wave have over just creating it normally? If it's just a protocol for information interchange that wraps around content which is what it sounds like from your description, then what was wrong with XML, or is it literally just a pre-defined XML schema for content?
Or I suppose to put it another way, what does it let us do that we couldn't do just as well already?
The irony of someone modding you flamebait for such an innocent comment I think actually amusingly proves your point.
If no one treated Apple like a religion, then there would be no one that cares about someone suggesting Apple is treated like a religion. The fact someone has taken offence to it basically proves that some people treat Apple like some kind of religion.
I mean really, unless you were some kind of zealot why would you care about someone making such a throwaway comment about a mere company? The fact someone has demonstrates that someone views Apple as more than just a company, more than just a provider of electronic devices and software, it demonstrates that they view it as something whose reputation they must defend rigorously.
I suspect the irony will be lost on such people though, as they sit red faced and fuming that someone dared to defy Apple and Pope Jobs.
Is it even possible to recreate some of the mind altering effects without creating addiction or having a negative effect on the mind though?
Would it be possible to prevent people who'd taken such "safe" drugs going out driving whilst high on them and killing someone in a car crash for example?
I agree it's a sensible option, but is it feasible?
In the UK we have different classes of drugs, and whilst they're all illegal, enforcement of handling is different.
For some enforcement regime for example, you could choose to allow people to have personal possesion of a small amount, but punish carrying large amounts, or using it in public with a caution or similar. Dealing it however may be treated as punishable by a jail term.
In all cases it's illegal, but the enforcement of that illegality depends on what you're doing with it.
It's probably worth noting that in the Netherlands for example, contrary to popular belief, Cannabis is still illegal. Their national policy however is simply that whilst illegal, it's also tolerated, in that there will be no punishment.
Something being illegal doesn't make the punishment binary, if you kill someone it's illegal either way, but punishment- i.e. enforcement of breaking that law depends entirely on how you killed them. If you went out, kidnapped them, tortured, and maimed them, and planned it all, then the law is going to come down a hell of a lot harder on you than if someone jumped out in front your car and got killed and you could do nothing to avoid them.
Besides, I think you'll find it actually is legal to shoot up in a supermarket, if it's a prescription drug, and that illustrates the point perfectly- not all ownership or use of drugs is equal.
Further examples include speeding, whilst it's against the law, if you have good reason- i.e. someone was trying to kill you, then by law, you can actually avoid punishment. Punishment for grievous bodily harm can be avoided if you were defending yourself from an aggressor, and treepass laws cannot be enforced if the tresspass was not intentional- i.e. your car blew a tyre and you veered off into the road.
So that's what's meant by different levels of enforcement, the idea that not all circumstances for some law being broken are equal.
"I happen to know the real reason but you seem to think you know so why don't you tell us. I seriously want to see if you are actually the suffering the "ignorance of so much around you" that you want to claim is others problems."
Do go on, please, I'm intrigued to hear what this real reason you supposedly know is.
Personally I always figured it was because America had been fucking around in those terrorists homelands for about the last 50 years in some cases keeping said countries unstable, or imposing their own often extremely brutal puppet dictator to ensure said countries could be exploited for their natural resources by American companies as best as possible. I assumed the terrorists in question were just a little fucked off at having their countries screwed around with so that people in America could sit happy and oblivious to the goings on in the rest of the world.
But perhaps I'm wrong, maybe you can enlighten me on the real reason if this is not it?
If the amount of alcohol abuse that goes on in the UK is anything to go by then I suspect there'd be a lot more Ozzy Osbournes roaming the streets.
I know it's popular amongst some to suggest that because the war on drugs hasn't worked, the answer is the absolute opposite i.e. that legalisation of drugs would solve the problem, but I suspect that the real answer is that whatever you do drugs will be a problem, the difficulty is finding the balance which lessens the problem the most. Again, if alcohol or cigarettes are anything to go by then the answer is certainly not legalisation.
The ban on smoking in public in the UK has done absolute wonders for reducing the problem, so clearly some level of enforcement can work in reducing the problem. If I had to guess then, I'd say light enforcement is probably the best option, as certainly strong enforcement and legalisation haven't worked too well.
The same reason the Wii doesn't overheat despite the fact 700mhz processor could end up doing just that in the PC when they first came out- it's old tech, it can easily and more cheaply be built to be far more heat efficient through smaller dye sizes, better cooling systems and such.
Although much less widely reported, so presumably effecting less people. It's unfortunately the manufacturers make when they rush to get cutting edge technology out the door ASAP.
That and the RROD fiasco cost Microsoft dear whiping out most of an entertainment and devices divisions entire year's profit at the time, so they're not likely to want to run that cost again.
So to answer your question, yes, you can, as much as you can expect any of the current gen consoles or a PC of equivalent spec to also last that time period realistically.
Judging from the summary this tool is useless for good developers- I know I trust myself with security with regards to things like SQL injection attacks more than I'd trust some automated system to eliminate them.
But it sounds like it's designed as a crutch for incompetent developers, those who don't use paramters or prepared statements because they don't know they exist/don't understand them/can't be bothered to learn about them/have some irrational reason for not using them.
Personally though I'm not sure we should keep bad programmers up on crutches, I'd rather just see them hounded out of software development altogether, because you can guarantee as soon as you've given them a crutch for one thing they're incompetent out, they'll find novel new ways to foul something else up and riddle something else with security holes one way or another.
I think tools like this simply mask the fundamental problem, that there are no real repercussions against bad software developers- there's no real accountability in the industry for the truly incompetent. I'm not advocating criminal or even civil punishment for software bugs or anything like that, because everyone makes some mistakes, but it'd be nice if we could at least keep the consistently bad people who do more harm than good out of the industry.
Still, I suppose you can't entirely fault Kaminsky for this effort, I guess he's working with what we have, rather than what we should have, trying to at least minimise the impact of the bad developers we're lumped with.
Yes, that's certainly one way to get a point across, unfortunately it just screams "I can't think of any way to refute your point, so I'll just lash out irrationally instead".
Still, if you believe the best place to gain insight about consumer products is from someone who died before Windows XP and the iPod even came out, then well, so be it, there's really no debating with that level of ignorance I suppose. He was a great guy and a great author, but he's hardly in a position to have been able to judge where technology would and wouldn't go with any level of certainty, although with all his predictions the shotgun effect means he's bound to get some right, and he has, but he's certainly not in a position to tell what is and isn't possible today. It's better to pay attention to technologists who actually know what is and isn't possible, and what will and will not be possible with some level of certainty.
I'm intrigued, what component do you feel in Kinect will prevent it working? tracking movements? voice recognition? facial recognition? Or are you simply expecting it to be able to do more than has been advertised? Microsoft are partly to blame here for not having the foresight to realise the assumptions some people would make in not making clear their Milo demo was merely like any other game- the game was responding to pre-scripted actions, not interpreting those actions as real AI as some people mistakenly assumed- perhaps that's the issue here?
Motion tracking, voice recognition, facial recognition have all worked well enough for gaming purposes for quite a while now. Whether it can all be done in one package for a reasonable price will be the real challenge, but as we have no idea how much Kinect will cost yet it's hard to judge that right now but facial recognition and voice recognition can be done with extremely cheap hardware, so it's the capabilities of the motion tracking that will matter, even cheap rudimentary motion tracking should have no problem tracking arms, legs and body movement though which still means all the extremes the Wii can cover are covered equally well for example.
My whole point was because it's controllerless, means it can be used with existing controllers, meaning if holding a controller is your thing, you can still do so, but Kinect can augment that controller based game. In comparison the Wii for example can only be used as it because it ties both your hands up, so you can't use existing classic controllers whilst also enjoy motion sensing.
Slashdot Mirror
The issue isn't that it's not possible, the issue is that HTML5 seems to tend towards HTML markup over XML markup.
Effectively it pushes bad practice as standard because there really is no benefit to HTML markup other than the ability to write sloppy markup, which is stupid.
People publish using tools nowadays, leave markup to the professionals (not that writing well formed XML is hardly a difficult job). If people can't understand how to write well formed XML markup then they've got no chance of understanding CSS and Javascript so might as well give up and use a web app to publish for them anyway.
Best to support the people who actually write web apps to make it easier to write better web apps, than to support sloppy developers who use HTML markup "because it's easier".
Yep, it did make me chuckle the other day when I saw the French were raising the retirement age to 62- poor sods, however will they cope?
Here in the UK though if you've seen the comments from the unions their attitude is no different- according to the unions in the UK we can't make cuts and we can't raise taxes. I'd love to know what planet the unions are on, I'd love to know where exactly they think we're going to find £150bn without cutting or raising taxes. That's a common trait amongst unions it seems though, they're often more than happy to whine and moan about everything, but they never actually offer any alternative solutions to the problems, just claim the solutions everyone else comes up with can't work.
Yeah, it's extremely simple but as I say, it demonstrates well the fact that if things get bad it's easy for Britain to make money.
If the country was on the verge of bankruptcy, would saving a phenomenal £60bn at the expense of £30 a week less state pension really be that bad? It'd certainly be better than the alternative of increased debt payments and an eventual inability to afford any state pension at all! The point is it demonstrates that Britain has got plenty it can cut, and that's a good thing. It's when you're both bankrupt and have nothing to cut either that you need to worry.
"the UK one is caused because the country hasn't actually produced anything in years"
Yeah, except the UK is still sitting at about the 5th to 7th largest economy in the world by manufacturing output and in the top 5 for service sector output. Contrary to popular belief, it's really only it's position in agriculture on the world stage that's declined.
That's quite an achievement for a country that hasn't produced anything in years.
No, Britain's problems were caused by it's reliance on the service sector in the face of the US' credit crisis in which it was deeply involved.
Britain doesn't have a problem with money or assets per-se, it has so many programs it could cancel (i.e. Trident) if push came to shove to pay it's debts, the issue is that the previous government over-extended public sector, such that we have more public sector expenditure than we can realistically afford. Britain's pain is merely going to have to be a scaling back of the public sector programs we have, coupled with higher taxes to pay for the rest of it- this isn't Britain's only option, because as I say, Britain has so many schemes and so much expenditure and so forth still that it could cut if it really needed to it's really not at much risk.
In contrast, countries like Greece don't have big things like nuclear weapons programs with money set aside for that they can cut now that it's hit crunch time. The same goes for Spain and so forth.
So effectively, like the US and France, whilst Britain doesn't have a lot of actual cash floating round, it does have a lot of expenditure planned, or assets to sell off should things get really bad.
In other words, Britain, like the US and France could solve it's financial situation tommorrow if the population was willing to accept the loss of some massively important albeit luxury programmes people have gotten used to having such as Trident, new aircraft carriers, child tax credits, free care for the elderly and that sort of thing. Of course, that wouldn't be pleasant for the people who depend on those schemes, which is why the government is trying to solve the debt problem a bit more slowly, and a bit more carefully.
Effectively, it has simply deemed that the UK video game industry tax relief is one of those small things that can be cut without the vast majority of the population actually giving a flying fuck, and without any real harm to the economy.
Conveniently the BBC have produced this tool that illustrates the rough point quite well:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10373060.stm
Try moving the welfare slider to see what I mean- in one fell swoop most the deficit could be eliminated, but the key is to do it with least impact on people possible.
I'd agree with you if you didn't have Castro in your list. The only reason he's been so defiant for so long is because everywhere he turns the CIA has tried to stick a knife in him one way or another.
America is as much responsible for Cuba's problems as Castro is, and it's easily a situation that could've been long resolved by more progressive and positive policies towards Cuba. Had the US lifted the embargo on Cuba about 30 years ago, Cuba would almost certainly be so Americanised now due to it's proximity with the US and the inevitable flood in of American products and people that the US would be able to consider it almost just another state.
There's also the point that people like Saddam Hussein clearly actually made Iraq a safer place with less atrocities commited than America's installation of democracy has.
Kim Jong-Il is a problem that'll solve itself one way or another too, he's old, he's dying. War may be necessary depending on the leader that replaces him, but it also may not, it may lead to an opening up of North Korea. Iran is a ticking time bomb too, there's so much anti-government sentiment that it's going to topple at some point or another.
In terms of Bashir, he's only hanging on because other African nations are supporting him, so any military action would stir further problems in those nations. The ideal solution is to try and cut his support politically and then he'll fall too.
Sure war is sometimes inevitable, sure change can take an awful long time, but as Iraq demonstrated, even a few thousand people a year being killed through extra-judicial killings is small fry compared to the scale of the killings we're seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan. War is generally only an option though when you've reached the point that not enough people support your viewpoint but you want to push it anyway. Even Hitler could've been stopped if the rest of Europe, the US and so forth had stood against him earlier on than they did, but many even outright supported him. The US didn't even care about Hitler until the war was already half over, let alone dealing with him during his rise.
Same reason they post pieces that are almost entirely or entirely made up from the likes of The Register, Fox News, and The Daily Mail and the likes sometimes too.
Reposting made up shit manages to get Slashdot lots of hits too.
Ah, one of those people.
The type who tries to look smart by pointing out that the term "I could care less" makes no sense when taken out face value, but unfortunately fail to realise it's a term commonly used in a sarcastic tone in some parts of the world such as Britain, with the implication of the sarcasm being that they couldn't care less.
It's a perfectly valid term when you understand the context, but I realise that if you live somewhere where people don't tend to use that term it might appear to be a mere failure to correctly use the English language, it's not. Hopefully this will put your mind to rest when you see it in future and the grammar nazi in you can now sleep well at night!
It's not even new ground. Britain went to war in Iraq with the US however misguided that venture was and lost some troops to friendly fire from a US A10, and the US refused to even release the gun camera to the British coroner who did the investigation and inquiry into the deaths to see if anything could be learnt and mistakes avoided in future, there was no talk of prosecuting the pilot or anything.
Yet, the US wouldn't even do that- not even when one of their pilots killed troops of one of their allies that had stood by them in going to war.
It just seems to be the US military way- if you fuck up, cover it up. Learning from mistakes? trying to avoid similar mistakes in future? what does that mean? This probably goes a long way to explaining why the US military has such an atrocious friendly fire record in the first place. Perhaps if they got over it and started acknowledging and properly investigating mistakes instead of covering them up then they'd have less to even need to think about covering up in the first place.
Perhaps this method could be automated for a more accurate geolocation service?
The link in question works using a browser feature that uploads information about you such as your IP, access points near you, and that sort of thing. This is why Google was farming access point data when they did street view.
So in the case of even these most intrusive things, the GP I was responding to is wrong regarding warnings, because your browser warns you. My comments were really targetted towards general IP geolocation that doesn't depend on browser uploads.
Personally I'd just keep browser based geolocation disabled, and it is by default in Firefox and I believe other browsers just like things such as password storage are.
"Who tells you that might be happening if you have an Android phone? Or if you install a browser that enables the geolocation services of HTML 5 on your PC (eg http://html5demos.com/geo )? No one. They don't have to."
Wrong. Each time you install an Android app, before accepting installation you've given a run down of what permissions the app requires, this includes things like internet access, or making phone calls, but also includes things like judging your rough location using cell masts etc., or judging your fine grained location using GPS. Regarding Google services doing geolocation, that's an option you'll get first time you turn your phone on and can easily change in the menus later if you choose if it has the Google apps pre-installed. I'm not sure why you think they can't stop it on Android, because Android has a marketplace too and all but the most technical users who know the risks anyway use this path for installing apps.
As for IP based geolocation on a PC, frankly I could care less. Even if I'm not using a VPN or something the best they can do is judge my location to be in an area large enough to contain a population of 20 million people. Apart from telling my country that's largely useless information, and that's all it's really used for as it's all that it can be used for, certainly it's not really enough to track you as an individual over and above what your IP already allows.
They're already there- check Firehose, the editors just never accept them.
I'm not sure what a random selected news feed is meant to prove. That it's not involved in the majorities of stories on Slashdot? That's fair enough.
The problem is that it's activities are still reported to a degree grossly disproportionate to their marketshare in many given sectors, and also despite the fact that other companies news simply does not get reported. Case in point, what percentage of Android, Symbian, or Blackberry handsets have had news stories posted on Slashdot on release in relation to the percentage of new iPhone models? What percentage get multiple stories about a new handset and it's features?
So the GP is really quite right, we do hear about every single fucking thing Apple does, to the detriment of the movements of other, sometimes bigger, more important players not having anything posted at all about their products and actions even when they're more worthy.
It's not just Slashdot that's guilty, even usually respectable sites like the BBC do the same- advertise every new Apple product for them whilst completely ignoring competitors, sometimes better, more innovative products- contrary to popular belief Apple does not hold a monopoly on innovation.
Even 2 stories in a list whose categories stem pretty much every possible technology, politics, and science new story in the world is grossly disproportionate. Oh, and I agree, yes, Google get far more than their fair share too.
I'm still a little lost, perhaps it's one of those things that isn't obvious until you've used it. But what advantage does creating content as a Wave have over just creating it normally? If it's just a protocol for information interchange that wraps around content which is what it sounds like from your description, then what was wrong with XML, or is it literally just a pre-defined XML schema for content?
Or I suppose to put it another way, what does it let us do that we couldn't do just as well already?
The irony of someone modding you flamebait for such an innocent comment I think actually amusingly proves your point.
If no one treated Apple like a religion, then there would be no one that cares about someone suggesting Apple is treated like a religion. The fact someone has taken offence to it basically proves that some people treat Apple like some kind of religion.
I mean really, unless you were some kind of zealot why would you care about someone making such a throwaway comment about a mere company? The fact someone has demonstrates that someone views Apple as more than just a company, more than just a provider of electronic devices and software, it demonstrates that they view it as something whose reputation they must defend rigorously.
I suspect the irony will be lost on such people though, as they sit red faced and fuming that someone dared to defy Apple and Pope Jobs.
Is it even possible to recreate some of the mind altering effects without creating addiction or having a negative effect on the mind though?
Would it be possible to prevent people who'd taken such "safe" drugs going out driving whilst high on them and killing someone in a car crash for example?
I agree it's a sensible option, but is it feasible?
In the UK we have different classes of drugs, and whilst they're all illegal, enforcement of handling is different.
For some enforcement regime for example, you could choose to allow people to have personal possesion of a small amount, but punish carrying large amounts, or using it in public with a caution or similar. Dealing it however may be treated as punishable by a jail term.
In all cases it's illegal, but the enforcement of that illegality depends on what you're doing with it.
It's probably worth noting that in the Netherlands for example, contrary to popular belief, Cannabis is still illegal. Their national policy however is simply that whilst illegal, it's also tolerated, in that there will be no punishment.
Something being illegal doesn't make the punishment binary, if you kill someone it's illegal either way, but punishment- i.e. enforcement of breaking that law depends entirely on how you killed them. If you went out, kidnapped them, tortured, and maimed them, and planned it all, then the law is going to come down a hell of a lot harder on you than if someone jumped out in front your car and got killed and you could do nothing to avoid them.
Besides, I think you'll find it actually is legal to shoot up in a supermarket, if it's a prescription drug, and that illustrates the point perfectly- not all ownership or use of drugs is equal.
Further examples include speeding, whilst it's against the law, if you have good reason- i.e. someone was trying to kill you, then by law, you can actually avoid punishment. Punishment for grievous bodily harm can be avoided if you were defending yourself from an aggressor, and treepass laws cannot be enforced if the tresspass was not intentional- i.e. your car blew a tyre and you veered off into the road.
So that's what's meant by different levels of enforcement, the idea that not all circumstances for some law being broken are equal.
"I happen to know the real reason but you seem to think you know so why don't you tell us. I seriously want to see if you are actually the suffering the "ignorance of so much around you" that you want to claim is others problems."
Do go on, please, I'm intrigued to hear what this real reason you supposedly know is.
Personally I always figured it was because America had been fucking around in those terrorists homelands for about the last 50 years in some cases keeping said countries unstable, or imposing their own often extremely brutal puppet dictator to ensure said countries could be exploited for their natural resources by American companies as best as possible. I assumed the terrorists in question were just a little fucked off at having their countries screwed around with so that people in America could sit happy and oblivious to the goings on in the rest of the world.
But perhaps I'm wrong, maybe you can enlighten me on the real reason if this is not it?
If the amount of alcohol abuse that goes on in the UK is anything to go by then I suspect there'd be a lot more Ozzy Osbournes roaming the streets.
I know it's popular amongst some to suggest that because the war on drugs hasn't worked, the answer is the absolute opposite i.e. that legalisation of drugs would solve the problem, but I suspect that the real answer is that whatever you do drugs will be a problem, the difficulty is finding the balance which lessens the problem the most. Again, if alcohol or cigarettes are anything to go by then the answer is certainly not legalisation.
The ban on smoking in public in the UK has done absolute wonders for reducing the problem, so clearly some level of enforcement can work in reducing the problem. If I had to guess then, I'd say light enforcement is probably the best option, as certainly strong enforcement and legalisation haven't worked too well.
The same reason the Wii doesn't overheat despite the fact 700mhz processor could end up doing just that in the PC when they first came out- it's old tech, it can easily and more cheaply be built to be far more heat efficient through smaller dye sizes, better cooling systems and such.
Even the PS3 had it's problems:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=Yellow+Light+of+Death&meta=&btnG=Google+Search
Although much less widely reported, so presumably effecting less people. It's unfortunately the manufacturers make when they rush to get cutting edge technology out the door ASAP.
That and the RROD fiasco cost Microsoft dear whiping out most of an entertainment and devices divisions entire year's profit at the time, so they're not likely to want to run that cost again.
So to answer your question, yes, you can, as much as you can expect any of the current gen consoles or a PC of equivalent spec to also last that time period realistically.
People using systems where every single piece of software available for it is optimised for the pre-existing RAM size?
I don't think I've ever met someone cry quite so hard as you are simply because someone disagreed with them on the internet.
Your life must really suck to get that upset over something so trivial, sucks to be you I guess.
Judging from the summary this tool is useless for good developers- I know I trust myself with security with regards to things like SQL injection attacks more than I'd trust some automated system to eliminate them.
But it sounds like it's designed as a crutch for incompetent developers, those who don't use paramters or prepared statements because they don't know they exist/don't understand them/can't be bothered to learn about them/have some irrational reason for not using them.
Personally though I'm not sure we should keep bad programmers up on crutches, I'd rather just see them hounded out of software development altogether, because you can guarantee as soon as you've given them a crutch for one thing they're incompetent out, they'll find novel new ways to foul something else up and riddle something else with security holes one way or another.
I think tools like this simply mask the fundamental problem, that there are no real repercussions against bad software developers- there's no real accountability in the industry for the truly incompetent. I'm not advocating criminal or even civil punishment for software bugs or anything like that, because everyone makes some mistakes, but it'd be nice if we could at least keep the consistently bad people who do more harm than good out of the industry.
Still, I suppose you can't entirely fault Kaminsky for this effort, I guess he's working with what we have, rather than what we should have, trying to at least minimise the impact of the bad developers we're lumped with.
"You wouldn't, 'cause you're a twat"
Yes, that's certainly one way to get a point across, unfortunately it just screams "I can't think of any way to refute your point, so I'll just lash out irrationally instead".
Still, if you believe the best place to gain insight about consumer products is from someone who died before Windows XP and the iPod even came out, then well, so be it, there's really no debating with that level of ignorance I suppose. He was a great guy and a great author, but he's hardly in a position to have been able to judge where technology would and wouldn't go with any level of certainty, although with all his predictions the shotgun effect means he's bound to get some right, and he has, but he's certainly not in a position to tell what is and isn't possible today. It's better to pay attention to technologists who actually know what is and isn't possible, and what will and will not be possible with some level of certainty.
I'm intrigued, what component do you feel in Kinect will prevent it working? tracking movements? voice recognition? facial recognition? Or are you simply expecting it to be able to do more than has been advertised? Microsoft are partly to blame here for not having the foresight to realise the assumptions some people would make in not making clear their Milo demo was merely like any other game- the game was responding to pre-scripted actions, not interpreting those actions as real AI as some people mistakenly assumed- perhaps that's the issue here?
Motion tracking, voice recognition, facial recognition have all worked well enough for gaming purposes for quite a while now. Whether it can all be done in one package for a reasonable price will be the real challenge, but as we have no idea how much Kinect will cost yet it's hard to judge that right now but facial recognition and voice recognition can be done with extremely cheap hardware, so it's the capabilities of the motion tracking that will matter, even cheap rudimentary motion tracking should have no problem tracking arms, legs and body movement though which still means all the extremes the Wii can cover are covered equally well for example.
Did you actually read my post?
My whole point was because it's controllerless, means it can be used with existing controllers, meaning if holding a controller is your thing, you can still do so, but Kinect can augment that controller based game. In comparison the Wii for example can only be used as it because it ties both your hands up, so you can't use existing classic controllers whilst also enjoy motion sensing.