Volkswagen fell into exactly the same trap with the Jetta. Where the Jetta used to have a distinct look that many really liked, their most recent iteration looks nothing short of what might be produced if an Audi raped a Corolla. The new generic body styles for the Jetta and Legacy have done nothing for their respective images.
Google Finance is a decent site, but calling it a fantastically well-designed resource is a bit of stretch. It does some of the things Google does well, like aggregate financial news from many other sites. It displays public data in a fairly clean Google fashion. But as a financial resource, it is quite primitive. I wouldn't recommend using it to make an real financial decisions. Even someone deciding how to re-balance their 401k for the year would be well advised to use more than what Google Finance can offer.
Perhaps at first blush, your reaction might seems right. But it only takes the a slight bit of thought to realize that most calculator interfaces, regardless of OS, mimic those of a physical world calculator - that is to say they don't take advantage of the extended output options of a desktop display and require you interact with numbers in the same archaic way as the physical models. A spreadsheet, on the other hand, allows you to keep all kinds of numbers all over the place for quick reference in addition to allowing you to quickly apply similar functions across different sets of numbers or more easily write more complex mathematical equations. Even when you calculator app allows that kind of thing, it's almost always more complicated to learn than its worth, and is way more easily done by just popping open a spreadsheet. As the parent said, anything more complicated than just adding a few numbers; I'm inclined to agree.
Without getting into whether what she really means is right or wrong, she contradicts herself and she is not being genuine:
"But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it."
Simply speaking, if something is controlled by any entity, it is thereby not free and open in the truest sense of all words involved. Controlled != free. What she really means is, "I'm trying to appeal to the sense freedom and openness in many communities but I really want to be sure I can always continue to make money on my books."
This story would be interesting on a site not built for computer people. It might be interesting to people who don't have any understanding of computers how and why computers work the way they do in movies, and why the computers at their office or home are so different. But here? I doubt very many folks on reading this site are even remotely surprised, or find this at all interesting. Anyone with even basic knowledge of a computer would understand that the things being displayed on computers in movies and televisions shows is not actual software, but displays and animations meant to mimic it.
The content of this article is so obvious that SCO should file a patent request for it.
But they are not meant to do so to such an extent as to create a monopolistic industry where a single patent or company's portfolio of patents controls the barrier of entry. They are meant to protect a company's way of doing things better.
A quick perusal of Rambus' patent portfolio does indicate their most recent patent was issued in 2008, which would indicate they are still attempting to innovate in their field. On the other hand, if they have certain patents that are so broad as to actually prohibit competition from entering the marketplace then the there is a very big problem with those patents. Patents are supposed to encourage corporations to invest in research and development by providing a measure of profit protection for the company doing that innovation. Stifling competition is counter to that intent.
You never said "nowadays" in your post. You never gave any kind of time frame to contextualize your prejudiced generalization.
I know more about Islam than you imagine, having actually read (a part of) the Kuran and living in places with a significant amount of muslims.
With my response there, I wasn't saying you didn't know about Islam, I was saying you hadn't mentioned "nowadays".
Do you think I'm offended by that phrase? Bothered even slightly by it?! Do you think now I may be going to torch cars or going into a rampage against a cartoonist?!
Seems like it got under your skin a little, given the superfluous use of punctuation, but that actually wasn't the intent. I said that about Christianity to make a point about your generalizations.
That's what muslims don't get, do they?! No. That's your prejudice showing up. That's the whole disgrace, of going into a tantrum for any bs said against their religion
My prejudice? Classic projection syndrome, I think. Nothing I have said here has been remotely prejudiced toward anyone. Every bit has been to try to show you yours.
Oh, by the way, in your example, that's the Catholic Church, not 'generic christians' doing crap.
This one is really funny. How about - "Oh, and by the way, that's Al-Qaeda, not 'generic muslims' doing crap." Don't you see your double standard? Again, I have no agenda here for or against Islam, for or against Christianity, other than to use your post(s) to point out the ignorance and hypocrisy that is so rampant in today's society. I am neither Christian nor Muslim.
While it is true the majority of India is Hindu, Maybe you weren't aware that as of 2009, they also held the third largest Muslim population in the world, behind Indonesia and Pakistan, at roughly 160 million people. That's equal to roughly the populations of Iran (74 million), Iraq (30 million), Saudi Arabia (25 million) and Yemen (23 million) combined. You could probably find other numbers, but the estimations are close enough. Citation: http://islam.about.com/od/muslimcountries/a/population.htm
I never claimed that, the keyword is: NOWADAYS
You never said "nowadays" in your post. You never gave any kind of time frame to contextualize your prejudiced generalization. But you are right, "nowadays" I don't see Christians running around with bombs in their underpants - but that's because they're too busy molesting altar boys. See? Generalizations serve no one...
To say one small group (Al-Qaeda) is indicative of Muslim belief is ignorant when the real majority of Muslims do not even live in the Middle East. The real majority of Muslims live in India, Bangladesh and Indonesia. If you were to say that the entire Muslim population of Pakistan were supportive of the Taliban, even then the former three country's Islamic populations outnumber those of Pakistan by about 3 to 1.
That said, I find it amusing and quite telling what assumptions were made about me just for posting what I did in my original response (not just your post). I actually, personally, have no use for any organized religion. Whether I am spiritual or not is not relevant, but in my view organized religion (whether that be Christianity, Islam, or whatever) is more a means of control and power than anything else, and the messages are perverted by whomever wields them to their own ends.
If you say you are in the name of Islam and several people agree then IT IS ISLAM
Do you know anything about the demographics of Islam in this world? Al-Qaeda is certainly not representitive of the majority of Islamic thinking. Nor is Iran, or even Saudi Arabia. As of 2009, there isn't even a true Middle-Eastern country in the top 5 for Islamic population. Pakistan would be the closest to the region, but India, Indonesia, and Bangladesh outnumber the Pakistani population about 3 to 1. Last I knew, India wasn't that thrilled with Islamic extremist bombings.
Claiming Islam is the only religion that's been perverted in the name of extremism is ignorant. Which is why I have little use for any kind of organized religion, whether it be Islam, Christianity, or Scientology.
It's not that I couldn't be bothered to read your post - it's that I disagree with the substance of your post. Plain books are inaccessible to the blind, so there are braille books. There is no difference between promoting a Kindle version of a non-braille book than there is between promoting a version with glossy pages versus non-glossy or any other kind of version of the book that's inaccessible to the blind. It has nothing to do with the interface because both regular books and Kindle books are equally inaccessible to the blind, and there is still the braille alternative (though some here are arguing that the Kindle actually is more accessible, but I think we can agree its not perfect). I find the interface argument to be unsubstantiated. And I didn't jump out and say anything against evil blind people - I disagreed with the interface argument.
I don't disagree it would be great to see the Kindle made even more accessible to anyone with vision problems, not just the blind, including enhancements to the interface. But I do think it's really silly not to promote paperless versions of the book for those who can use them right now.
I would say you're the one who's completely missed the point, chief. Maybe you should consider the number of times you've had to defend your lack of simple comprehension as a subtle hint? Neither am I required to cater to you're stupidity.
Slashdot Mirror
...and in other news, water is wet.
That wouldn't have been an atrocious, horrible act that should never have happened in the first place.
Volkswagen fell into exactly the same trap with the Jetta. Where the Jetta used to have a distinct look that many really liked, their most recent iteration looks nothing short of what might be produced if an Audi raped a Corolla. The new generic body styles for the Jetta and Legacy have done nothing for their respective images.
Nah, we real people still have criminal law. Wouldn't want to treat corporations equally in that sense, would we! :P
Google Finance is a decent site, but calling it a fantastically well-designed resource is a bit of stretch. It does some of the things Google does well, like aggregate financial news from many other sites. It displays public data in a fairly clean Google fashion. But as a financial resource, it is quite primitive. I wouldn't recommend using it to make an real financial decisions. Even someone deciding how to re-balance their 401k for the year would be well advised to use more than what Google Finance can offer.
Perhaps at first blush, your reaction might seems right. But it only takes the a slight bit of thought to realize that most calculator interfaces, regardless of OS, mimic those of a physical world calculator - that is to say they don't take advantage of the extended output options of a desktop display and require you interact with numbers in the same archaic way as the physical models. A spreadsheet, on the other hand, allows you to keep all kinds of numbers all over the place for quick reference in addition to allowing you to quickly apply similar functions across different sets of numbers or more easily write more complex mathematical equations. Even when you calculator app allows that kind of thing, it's almost always more complicated to learn than its worth, and is way more easily done by just popping open a spreadsheet. As the parent said, anything more complicated than just adding a few numbers; I'm inclined to agree.
Without getting into whether what she really means is right or wrong, she contradicts herself and she is not being genuine:
"But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it."
Simply speaking, if something is controlled by any entity, it is thereby not free and open in the truest sense of all words involved. Controlled != free. What she really means is, "I'm trying to appeal to the sense freedom and openness in many communities but I really want to be sure I can always continue to make money on my books."
Uplink was a lot of fun. :)
This story would be interesting on a site not built for computer people. It might be interesting to people who don't have any understanding of computers how and why computers work the way they do in movies, and why the computers at their office or home are so different. But here? I doubt very many folks on reading this site are even remotely surprised, or find this at all interesting. Anyone with even basic knowledge of a computer would understand that the things being displayed on computers in movies and televisions shows is not actual software, but displays and animations meant to mimic it.
The content of this article is so obvious that SCO should file a patent request for it.
Sorry you got a flamebait moderation, man. Because you're dead on correct.
That said, you're right. I'm not sure what I was thinking. My last two sentences are contradictory.
But they are not meant to do so to such an extent as to create a monopolistic industry where a single patent or company's portfolio of patents controls the barrier of entry. They are meant to protect a company's way of doing things better.
A quick perusal of Rambus' patent portfolio does indicate their most recent patent was issued in 2008, which would indicate they are still attempting to innovate in their field. On the other hand, if they have certain patents that are so broad as to actually prohibit competition from entering the marketplace then the there is a very big problem with those patents. Patents are supposed to encourage corporations to invest in research and development by providing a measure of profit protection for the company doing that innovation. Stifling competition is counter to that intent.
Your response does more to illustrate my point about ignorance than anything more I could possibly say.
You never said "nowadays" in your post. You never gave any kind of time frame to contextualize your prejudiced generalization. I know more about Islam than you imagine, having actually read (a part of) the Kuran and living in places with a significant amount of muslims.
With my response there, I wasn't saying you didn't know about Islam, I was saying you hadn't mentioned "nowadays".
Do you think I'm offended by that phrase? Bothered even slightly by it?! Do you think now I may be going to torch cars or going into a rampage against a cartoonist?!
Seems like it got under your skin a little, given the superfluous use of punctuation, but that actually wasn't the intent. I said that about Christianity to make a point about your generalizations.
That's what muslims don't get, do they?! No. That's your prejudice showing up. That's the whole disgrace, of going into a tantrum for any bs said against their religion
My prejudice? Classic projection syndrome, I think. Nothing I have said here has been remotely prejudiced toward anyone. Every bit has been to try to show you yours.
Oh, by the way, in your example, that's the Catholic Church, not 'generic christians' doing crap.
This one is really funny. How about - "Oh, and by the way, that's Al-Qaeda, not 'generic muslims' doing crap." Don't you see your double standard? Again, I have no agenda here for or against Islam, for or against Christianity, other than to use your post(s) to point out the ignorance and hypocrisy that is so rampant in today's society. I am neither Christian nor Muslim.
I never claimed that, the keyword is: NOWADAYS
You never said "nowadays" in your post. You never gave any kind of time frame to contextualize your prejudiced generalization. But you are right, "nowadays" I don't see Christians running around with bombs in their underpants - but that's because they're too busy molesting altar boys. See? Generalizations serve no one...
Indeed. Apologies for the confusion.
To say one small group (Al-Qaeda) is indicative of Muslim belief is ignorant when the real majority of Muslims do not even live in the Middle East. The real majority of Muslims live in India, Bangladesh and Indonesia. If you were to say that the entire Muslim population of Pakistan were supportive of the Taliban, even then the former three country's Islamic populations outnumber those of Pakistan by about 3 to 1.
That said, I find it amusing and quite telling what assumptions were made about me just for posting what I did in my original response (not just your post). I actually, personally, have no use for any organized religion. Whether I am spiritual or not is not relevant, but in my view organized religion (whether that be Christianity, Islam, or whatever) is more a means of control and power than anything else, and the messages are perverted by whomever wields them to their own ends.
My point was simply that Al-Qaeda != Islam.
If you say you are in the name of Islam and several people agree then IT IS ISLAM
Do you know anything about the demographics of Islam in this world? Al-Qaeda is certainly not representitive of the majority of Islamic thinking. Nor is Iran, or even Saudi Arabia. As of 2009, there isn't even a true Middle-Eastern country in the top 5 for Islamic population. Pakistan would be the closest to the region, but India, Indonesia, and Bangladesh outnumber the Pakistani population about 3 to 1. Last I knew, India wasn't that thrilled with Islamic extremist bombings.
Claiming Islam is the only religion that's been perverted in the name of extremism is ignorant. Which is why I have little use for any kind of organized religion, whether it be Islam, Christianity, or Scientology.
A bunch of muslim-ish arabs (19 of 'em) attacked us.
FIFY. What those extremists claim to be Islam is not Islam.
Okay, now you're just diverting the topic around to not be wrong. I'm out.
It's not that I couldn't be bothered to read your post - it's that I disagree with the substance of your post. Plain books are inaccessible to the blind, so there are braille books. There is no difference between promoting a Kindle version of a non-braille book than there is between promoting a version with glossy pages versus non-glossy or any other kind of version of the book that's inaccessible to the blind. It has nothing to do with the interface because both regular books and Kindle books are equally inaccessible to the blind, and there is still the braille alternative (though some here are arguing that the Kindle actually is more accessible, but I think we can agree its not perfect). I find the interface argument to be unsubstantiated. And I didn't jump out and say anything against evil blind people - I disagreed with the interface argument.
I don't disagree it would be great to see the Kindle made even more accessible to anyone with vision problems, not just the blind, including enhancements to the interface. But I do think it's really silly not to promote paperless versions of the book for those who can use them right now.
Blah, quick posting.. 'your', not 'you're', at the end.. since I have a feeling someone will take the petty route. End of discussion.
I would say you're the one who's completely missed the point, chief. Maybe you should consider the number of times you've had to defend your lack of simple comprehension as a subtle hint? Neither am I required to cater to you're stupidity.
Because navigating a regular book is a lot easier?