Well, this is the problem, isn't it? Who wants to sell fat, dumb pipes?
The cable cos figured this out fairly quickly. First, CATV was a way to deliver better reception; a fat, dumb pipe. Then cable got alternative programming, then exclusive or premium programming, then pay-per-view. Video is pretty much tapped out since Interactive TV failed, and along comes the Internet. A way to sell the same pipe again. Yes, it needed bigger pipes, but that's offset by the revenue. VOIP gave them a third way to sell the same pipe yet again. Not a bad trick.
Now wireless cos are working out how to do the same thing. Voice is obvious. SMS/MMS is just the second way to sell what is the same pipe in the way the cable cos sell video and Internet. Now wireless is selling Internet as the third stream.
Well, despite the bigness and fatness of the pipes, there are actual limits. Charging more for volume is the model followed in video, with the cable cos charging us incrementally even for chanels that PAY THEM to be carried. Needless to say, channels that charge the cable cos end up costing us. And cable cos do have limited bandwidth. Most systems carry video, VOIP, residential Internet, commercial Internet, and some carry dedicated data channels not so easily categorized. Wireless is currently even more constrained, but while technology may yet give us way more capability in wireless, it will still be finite.
And of course wireless cos will want to extract revenue from us, as much and as often as possible.
I'm not the least surprised AT&T kills the unlimited data plan. They can't tolerate iPhone traffic in many areas, and the iPad soaks up data in a way that makes the iPhone look like it's using an eyedropper. Come on. Be honest. This was inevitable.
What's interesting is trying to understand who's wagging the dog. Is Apple engorging AT&T by selling data-hungry devices that fatten AT&T's wallet, or is AT&T enabling Apple to sell data-hungry devices that further implant Apple's hold and attraction on and from their customers? The iPod succeeds mostly because of iTunes. iPhone succeeds mostly because of the app store. iPad? Probably because of something Apple is cooking up right now, and we haven't recognized it yet. The iPad is actually breaking Apple's typical strategy, because it is only locked into AT&T by a microSIM, which you can duplicate with a pair of scissors. Something else is coming. Maybe the successful AppleTV? Yes, the iPad screen is not HD ratio, but if you letterbox it up at the top of the screen, what do you do with the bottom of the screen? Answer - monetize it. The Apple Way.
"You have to design a version for on-screen keyboards (because it'll use part of the screen real estate) separately from a version that uses a hardware keyboard. They don't need to be separate apps, but you need to design (visually at least) for both scenarios, or you end up locking out a good portion of the people who use android devices."
Please, tell me what the name of any of your apps are, since they would be the FIRST I have seen that bother to code for different keyboards. The rest all just let the screen sit, and let the Android keyboard cover them up.
I've learned to deal with this, but on some web pages, the keyboard covers up the form no matter what I try, so Steel and the Browser fail here. The Craigslist app I use covers up option button on their form. Maps in search ditto, but nothing is lost.
This is a nonissue, unless you've coded to move your screen intelligently to keep required real estate visible despite the keyboard.
Actually, I meant to call you out. This is a BS issue for me. But hell, I'm just a user. I know nothing.
As G1 owner, I have some complaint about getting updates. We are at 1.6, and it is unlikely we will get 2.1. We are NOT getting 2.2 or above.
So what do I base a significant complaint to HTC on? The G1 has inadequate memory to run 2.x, at least in stock trim. Looked good in October 2008. The modders are making it work with Apps2SD and other tricks, but is there any real payoff for HTC to work the extra hours on shoehorning 2.x into the G1? Don't they make more money focusing on the current crop? Look, it's profit. I'll get a new Android phone this fall when I re-up, butnot before, and I might buy one outright.
Complaining about how Android is fragmenting is the SAME ARGUMENT AS WINMO USERS HAVE. Apple and Sony are your bet bets to avoid that, and now SE is in Android. At least there is an active modder community for Android. WinMo users have nowhere to run.
"Microsoft has to get out of its well-established cultural mindset that it's OK to ship crap that it might fix later on"
It wasn't so long ago that cell phones were just not updateable. If you shipped a phone with software bugs, you got to run a campaign of swapping out sold units and inventory, and suffered the slings and arrows of outraged buyers. I can't think of a phone I've had with a genuine software bug until my first BlackBerry, and that was updateable.
Android in particular is spoiling us for both quality and freshness.
In PC software, it was also not so long ago that if you shipped something buggy, you got to mail out CDs or diskettes of patches, and of course had a patch management system that made it all work. WordPerfect had issues in the 4.x releases that caused these shipments. Sun got so fed up with patches to Solaris that they implemented an early Web-based distrtibution system when Usenet was still the favored way to get large files of anything. Sun cost Fedex a pretty penny by putting an end to worldwide shipments of patches, and good for them.
Today, we tolerate both poor quality software and rapid patch cycles, because we have a relatively ubiquitous infrastructure (the Internet) to support it. Microsoft is not alone in relying on this to cover over a multitude of sins, from kssing/broken features to of course constant security issues. Picking a biggest offender on this area is pointless.
Windows Mobile I haven't had, but it seems that WM is not that much worse than any other phone software when it comes to patches and bugs. Android is struggling with fragmentation, with phones that 'can't' run the latest version. My G1 is way behind, and will not get 2.1 officially, Samsung is currently facing a lot of user outrage over the Behold 2 not getting Android 2.1 as 'promised'. Windows Mobile phones are legendary for the lack of OS upgrades, usually because the new version just needs more than the old phone can deliver, but sometimes because the manufacturer will not license the new version. Hey, it's a jungle out there.
So the admonition that "ship crap that it might fix later on" is bad is just so obvious it defies logic. why say that out loud? However, it IS ok, so far, to promise to upgrade later, and maybe not do so. It seems to be ok to ship crap and fix it, despite the whole issue of making a phone work from day one - see Google and the Nexuis One for an example of apparently poor testing and immediate negastive feedback from users. Not even a phone number to call, and calling the carrier resulted in 'talk to Google' for a response.
It's not so much about shipping crap now, as it is responding to problems and quick resolutions. Kinda sad, but we are in an immediate world, and we are tolerating crap.
Having said that, where do you turn for excellence out-of-the-box? Is Nokia still shipping great phones that work?
"or - we're frakked, because the aliens will turn out to be total badasses; due to evolving in very harsh conditions"
Hmmm...
Since anything other then *your* native environment will probly seem 'harsh', especially if you have the habit of visting all sorts of planets, visitors will probably show up here and either stay in their ships as they hose us with directed-energy weapons or spray us with whatever biological goo does us as they wish us to be done. Unlikely that they will land and walk out all crip and neat like Anna, but then again they may send cyborgs to interact with us. Disposal, assimilation or submission comes later, when they have enough data for an assessment, assuming they care at all.
But if they are somewhat more primitive, then we might get visitors that are in exposure suits, and we might be able to nick a few before they get the hang of it here.
Either way, leading with nukes and F-16s will not be our best shot. Smallpox might kill them off faster, and we can clean that up easier than worldwide nukes. Then it's the choice, do we kill the invaders and 30% of our population, or wait for a better strategy to come out of the Resistance?
ps - I'm not concerned at all.... It's just interesting.
"Medien Patent Verwaltung originally claimed that Warner was infringing on patent 7,187,633, called "Motion Picture and Anti-Piracy Coding," but as The Hollywood Reporter discovered, the patent going by that particular name actually bears a different number and is held by none other than Warner Bros. MPV's attorney in New York acknowledged the error and said that the suit will be refiled with the proper information."
Is this funny that MPV's attorney mixed up patent name, or pathetic that MVP's attorney can't keep the patent name straight?
Or both?
If it were me, I would have a backup lawyer. Just in case. Not an auspicious start.
"for the use of technology as an enabling mechanism for government."
I'm not sure I want my government enabled any more than it is. Ineffective oversight of offshore oil drilling, failed immigration control, failed financial oversight, my government needs to do some things that are just not that hard, and don't need technology to do them. Only three of many examples shown. C'mon, Obama, fix your own house, eh?
"I have one simple requirement: all laws must be written in a Wiki with full history."
Of all the things that need improvement, our legislative record and US Codes is not one of them. Sure, a Wiki would be more convenient. But if you want to know more about a law, there are MANY sources. Another Wiki doesn't fix anything. It's all out there, and duplicating the data just de-normalizes things. Several universities have excellent sources of legislative action and history.
Now, publishing documents in open formats would be useful. Disclosing political campaign donations in REAL TIME would be very enlightening. Correlating lobbying and corporate behavior, legislative action, and campaign financing would also be enlightening. Opening up some datasets, as the Census Bureau has started to do, would be useful. Raw data is always great, and raw data on political contributors, etc. would shed light on a dark process. A good thing.
I'm never going to infect my computer with a rhinovirus, or a common cold, or polio. It's not going to get smallpox (even in the lab), chickenpox, or herpes.
When we start making computers out of biological components, then we can have this discussion. In the meantime, I could implant an infected chip in my shoe and make a claim.
notes is where Kapor got the idea for, um, Notes. Look it up.
Not to mention a few multiplayer games, in virtually every genre, that would have been MMOs except for the problems of any lesson being massive. I saw 25 users in Avatar pretty regular, and once I think I saw 42, but that might have been my imagination. Gaming was bit on PLATO, especially in the UICU days. The times it reported to to be running 24.9 hours a day were fun times indeed.
In 1973, I was learning digital logic, microprocessors, and microwave technology in the USAF. Some time around 1988 I got into Plato courtesy of the University of Maine. I also got kicked off, being just a little to far to the right for =events=. After more than a year hearing how I was Rush Linmbaugh's butt boy, I moved to southern Maine and *actually* heard him for the first time. Hmm. Yup, they were half-way correct - I was where Rush was. Not a good place to debate apartheid and the savings & loan scandals with a bunch of college professors and Marxist students. But it was fun while it lasted. Sorry for all the problems, mainei. They restored the group from backups, right?
I still play avatar on Cyber1. Still good fun. Lots of stats, so come play Zavatar, the economy isn't ruined like the original, and the studs don't own everything yet.
"True, but with my WinMo or Android phone, I still have control over my own device...not the other way around."
When was the last time you tried to update the OS on your WinMo phone? Much open source software for it? If your phone doesn't support WinMo v whatever, you generally ain't gettin' it. When WinMo 7 comes out, you will hear the gnashing of teeth as everyone finds out their 6-month-old phone won't do it.
My Android phone (G1) is a different matter. If you're willing to root it, you can get a lot. Since Froyo is not coming to the G1 officially, I will have to root to get the goodies. No idea if Flash 10.1 will actually work on it, but the modders are very clever.
"I especially can't deal with a company restricting people more and more and laughing all the way to the bank while they do it."
The description "a company restricting people more and more and laughing all the way to the bank" covers a lot of ground. I hope you've managed to avoid all you can, utilities and employers excepted.
By design, all claims that the Improbability Drive doesn't actually work are false.
Claims that it doesn't work well are also false.
Nice try, though. Tea is the secret. They only MEASURED Brownian motion, no word on how they might either predict it, control it, or even duplicate it. But if they could in fact duplicate a Brownian circumstance, the Improbablity Drive stil works, because, well, despite the elegant engineering, it is improbably successful. Or something like that. Keep your towel handy.
The point is, they won't miss you for a moment. Your freedom will not equal punishing or costing Apple in any measurable way.
And do go ahead, buy something else, like I do. You don't need to make them suffer to enjoy your choices. But railing against Apple (or any other successful company that diminishes you) is pointless. Get over it. They will do fine without you.
Now, I dare you to find a substitute that has a measurably better attitude. Google? Microsoft? Any cell company? Any call phone/player/netbook maker? All are compromised by profit.
"during what is in theory a show supposedly there to educate us on issues..."
You do not have a grasp of how most 'news' shows work, nor their intentions.
Most of what purports to be a 'news show' is mostly the thinnest, least incisive presentation of an issue. Most often, they are regurgitations of some other party or source, which is ok, but no depth. Jon Stewart does this exceedingly well, as he usually just has to read the blurb and it just speaks for itself. Occassionally he embellishes for effect. Most are a mix of 'news' (facts, etc) and opinion. Examples of the mix are, in my opinion, Situation Room, Rachel Maddow, etc. Some are purely opinion, such as O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck, and wow I have to think of a left-leaning example - oh yea, Anderson Cooper, Campbell Brown (and I liked her a LOT), Keith Olberman, and a long list.
The problem is discerning between news and opinion, more precisely between journalism and opinion. This is not easy, because most of the Op Ed types want to declare their opinion as so true and accurate that it is just a fact, deal with it and get on board please. This afflicts the Left AND the Right. Discerning the difference is where we need to be careful and get it right, lest we believe everything we read or see. Of course, Op Ed types SHOULD be presenting their opinion as the right one; who would listen to someone who asks you to listen to them 'almost get it right, maybe, I'm not really sure...'?
Examples abound, and I won't offer any. But news shows are often anything but. I don't fault them for no being journalistic. I fault them for not being honest about what they are.
ps - Each broadcasting network has its own bias, a fact of life. Newspapers were legendary for this when they were more relevant. Nothing has changed. Again, discerning the bias is important.
Yuh. I go to look for a particular designer's eyeglass frames, and I don't get ads for that designer's frames, nor do I get ads for eyeglasses or even sunglasses.
I get ads that send me to link farms, malware hatcheries, FAKE shopping sites, etc. Seems the evil advertisers pay more to get to the top of the list.
Just wrap it in tin foil, and keep the rays from getting to it and commanding the wipe.
Act quickly...
Later, keep it inside the Faraday cage you have constructed. You HAVE constructed the cage, right? If it's GSM, pull the SIM. If not, well, the cage will need to be expanded to be comfortable...
I agree entirely, I think, with everthing you write. Save for one thing...
An acknowledgment of religious views of the creation of the Universe has a place in science texts, I believe, not because it expresses a scientific view, but because it addresses beliefs held by at least a noticeable portion of Americans, and should focus not on a theological exposition but rather to at least present the general view and encourage students to consider it, along with other competing views on the origin of the Universe. The scientific method does not discard alternate theories without at least a minimal exploration of them, if only to point out obvious flaws.
And we seem to be heading down a road in public education in America where it may be impossible to offer a comparitive religion class in public schools. It seems, from my vantage point (a biased one, I admit, though I try to overcome that) that you must respect all religions except Christianity. I'm not asking for special treatement, but I get it. You might understand better than many./'rs why that seems so easy to do for so many people. In the interim, however, I'm not as concerned or militant as I might be.
I'm dismayed that so many Christians are compelled to challenge the physical evidence of God's creation. It's irrefutable. It's also a mystery. Ask any three well-considered physicists how the Universe was created. You may get four different opinions.
"Is your god a just, good, and loving god or an evil, selfish, vindictive god?"
An interesting question, both because he can be all things, and because it is irrelevant to our discussion.
"Most of the men who found the United States of America were, in fact, deists, not christians."
Benjamin Franklin, a self-proclaimed deist, recommended that the Constitutional Convention, then meeting in relative secrecy, appoint a chaplain. Thereafter, the convention opened each session in prayer, after a brief interruption to reorganize in the wake of that contentious meeting where Franklin appealsed for a chaplain and prayers.
Franklin's best statement about his beliefs might be the one a few weeks before his death. Perhaps most telling is his comment:"and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble". This does present a problem, as to be considered a Christian today would require, generally, that you accept Christ as God's only son. I, for one, would not be inclined to challenge Mr. Franklin's beliefs soley on that basis. But in the letter referenced above, Franklin seemed to express a very common belief among churches and believers at the time. Strictly, no, Franklin was not a Chrtistian. His beliefs, however, were not atheist. You may win this argument, but Franklin's words seem to bring him closer to Christianty than not.
The Contintental Congress first opened in prayer on September 7, 1774. Not very inclusive, granted, but not atheist.
"Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Article VI seems to include the Constitution, laws, and treaties. Are you claiming that the Treaty of Tripoli supercedes the Constitution? Or that it amplifies it? I would propose that the treaty of Tripoli, along with all others is subject to constitutional checks, as are all other laws and agreements of the nation. More to the point, however, I wrote:
"From there, you can easily teach that while we may have been founded as a Christian nation, we are not exclusively Christian now, nor even then"
I did not claim that American WAS founded as a Christian nation, and while I believe we wre intended to be founded as one, I also believe that as a Christian nation that we need not, and indeed should not, nor were we intended to oppress others nor conduct our affairs as if there is only the one true God and all others should yield to him. Rather, it is Christian to care for others, show compassion to all no matter their beliefs or even their attitude and behavior towards you, and recognize that not all will accept Christ, and loving them despite that. Now, being an Islamic nation does not seem to permit a very charitable attitude to non-Muslims. I'm not sure there is a good example of Buddhism as government to rely on, though the Dalai Lama seems to be a peaceful and genuine leader, and Tibet seems to be as peaceful as they can be given that they are under direct persecution, invasion, and destruction by China.
If I were teaching US History as it was taught to me in 1971, I would be exploring the beliefs of the founding fathers, and recognizing the diversity of those beliefs. I would also be teaching how these and other beliefs have impacted our nation,
"Seriously? If you've got a 3TB drive, are you seriously suggesting a person be counting wasted bytes?"
Seriously, if you bought a 3TB drive, and you actually intend to use it, then the wasted space problem is as relevant as it was when you needed a 300MB drive. It's just scale, the argument is not invalidated.
If you want to know if I believe God created all we are aware, if, yes, I believe he did.
If you want to know if I know HOW he did it, well, I dunno. If evolution explains it suffuciently for science to make sense of it all, I'm fine with that.
Here's the details of my belief;
1. God declares himself to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnisicent. This means, to me, that he can do anything he wants, and he can be anywere, in fact everywhere, and know everything, even the future. All of this depends on him being omnipotent. You don't have to agree with me to understand my belief, ok?
1a. God also declares himself to have existed for all time. This gets complicated to some, but if God created the Universe, he existed outside of it (making something implies you are not PART of it, it did not exist until you made it, therefore you existed before it, be it a cake or the Universe.) Again, you can disagree, this is my expression of what I believe. And yes, I beleive I am correct, but I'm making these points so you might understand better why I make them, and my conclusions.
2. If God is in fact onmipotent, then he can indeed create anything he wants - including the Universe.
3. If God is onmipotent, then he can also create the Universe as he wishes. This includes creating it all at once, over the span of a week, or billions of years. And he can choose to make all of this appear as if it were made in a week, billions of years, or even instantly. Yes, he can make fossils, create artifacts that appear ancient to us, or he could have made Earth billions of years ago and work the processes to give us this world we see today.
4. The Bible, in the book of Genesis, does state that God created the world (and the Universe according to most scholars) in six days. We can have a frank discussion on what a day is to God, and if this is a literal translation of a 24-hour day or not, but in the end, my point 3 explains my belief that if he wanted to do it in six days and make it look like billions of years, he could.
In light of these beliefs, I am not compelled to challenge evolution as a viable scientific theory. I am not threatened by teaching it as established fact, though of course we still call it theory - science calls many things 'theory' that are settled science. However, I am somewhat dismayed that the discussion has devolved into an 'either-or' choice. A single paragraph in a science text, pointing out that many religions have other explanations for the creation of the Universe and of life on Earth would satisfy me. Christianity isn't the only faith that has a creation story. And offering minimal challenges to evolutionary theory doesn't seem to me to be a big deal, though this needs to be presented to students when they can grasp the concept of alternative views and competing theories. In other words, teach our children to think and excercise critical discernment, and this will not be a problem.
The Texas Board of Education does need correction in this matter. I am not the one to offer it to them. And we probably need some way to print more than one version of a science text. In this age of books-on-demand, electronic delivery, and the many other advances in printing, we can do a lot better. The textbook publishers are the problem here, not a bunch of self-serving administrators in ANY state of the Union.
Sheesh.
ps- From what I've seen over the past 3 decades, history texts in particular have been edited in the direction of a definite liberal/leftist bias, with blatant re-writing of historical events and slanted descriptions and conclusions. I don't want to see it turn to the right - I want it history taught as HISTORY, facts and reality, with opinion and conclusions labelled as such. Get the facts right first, please.
A good example of this would be to teach the reality that many of the men who founded our nation (the U.S.) were devout and active Christians, and their faith influenced thei
Slashdot Mirror
Well, this is the problem, isn't it? Who wants to sell fat, dumb pipes?
The cable cos figured this out fairly quickly. First, CATV was a way to deliver better reception; a fat, dumb pipe. Then cable got alternative programming, then exclusive or premium programming, then pay-per-view. Video is pretty much tapped out since Interactive TV failed, and along comes the Internet. A way to sell the same pipe again. Yes, it needed bigger pipes, but that's offset by the revenue. VOIP gave them a third way to sell the same pipe yet again. Not a bad trick.
Now wireless cos are working out how to do the same thing. Voice is obvious. SMS/MMS is just the second way to sell what is the same pipe in the way the cable cos sell video and Internet. Now wireless is selling Internet as the third stream.
Well, despite the bigness and fatness of the pipes, there are actual limits. Charging more for volume is the model followed in video, with the cable cos charging us incrementally even for chanels that PAY THEM to be carried. Needless to say, channels that charge the cable cos end up costing us. And cable cos do have limited bandwidth. Most systems carry video, VOIP, residential Internet, commercial Internet, and some carry dedicated data channels not so easily categorized. Wireless is currently even more constrained, but while technology may yet give us way more capability in wireless, it will still be finite.
And of course wireless cos will want to extract revenue from us, as much and as often as possible.
I'm not the least surprised AT&T kills the unlimited data plan. They can't tolerate iPhone traffic in many areas, and the iPad soaks up data in a way that makes the iPhone look like it's using an eyedropper. Come on. Be honest. This was inevitable.
What's interesting is trying to understand who's wagging the dog. Is Apple engorging AT&T by selling data-hungry devices that fatten AT&T's wallet, or is AT&T enabling Apple to sell data-hungry devices that further implant Apple's hold and attraction on and from their customers? The iPod succeeds mostly because of iTunes. iPhone succeeds mostly because of the app store. iPad? Probably because of something Apple is cooking up right now, and we haven't recognized it yet. The iPad is actually breaking Apple's typical strategy, because it is only locked into AT&T by a microSIM, which you can duplicate with a pair of scissors. Something else is coming. Maybe the successful AppleTV? Yes, the iPad screen is not HD ratio, but if you letterbox it up at the top of the screen, what do you do with the bottom of the screen? Answer - monetize it. The Apple Way.
We'll see. But capped data plans were inevitable.
"You have to design a version for on-screen keyboards (because it'll use part of the screen real estate) separately from a version that uses a hardware keyboard. They don't need to be separate apps, but you need to design (visually at least) for both scenarios, or you end up locking out a good portion of the people who use android devices."
Please, tell me what the name of any of your apps are, since they would be the FIRST I have seen that bother to code for different keyboards. The rest all just let the screen sit, and let the Android keyboard cover them up.
I've learned to deal with this, but on some web pages, the keyboard covers up the form no matter what I try, so Steel and the Browser fail here. The Craigslist app I use covers up option button on their form. Maps in search ditto, but nothing is lost.
This is a nonissue, unless you've coded to move your screen intelligently to keep required real estate visible despite the keyboard.
Actually, I meant to call you out. This is a BS issue for me. But hell, I'm just a user. I know nothing.
As G1 owner, I have some complaint about getting updates. We are at 1.6, and it is unlikely we will get 2.1. We are NOT getting 2.2 or above.
So what do I base a significant complaint to HTC on? The G1 has inadequate memory to run 2.x, at least in stock trim. Looked good in October 2008. The modders are making it work with Apps2SD and other tricks, but is there any real payoff for HTC to work the extra hours on shoehorning 2.x into the G1? Don't they make more money focusing on the current crop? Look, it's profit. I'll get a new Android phone this fall when I re-up, butnot before, and I might buy one outright.
Complaining about how Android is fragmenting is the SAME ARGUMENT AS WINMO USERS HAVE. Apple and Sony are your bet bets to avoid that, and now SE is in Android. At least there is an active modder community for Android. WinMo users have nowhere to run.
"compared to the Nazis burning books."
Get off it, Joan. Please.
"Microsoft has to get out of its well-established cultural mindset that it's OK to ship crap that it might fix later on"
It wasn't so long ago that cell phones were just not updateable. If you shipped a phone with software bugs, you got to run a campaign of swapping out sold units and inventory, and suffered the slings and arrows of outraged buyers. I can't think of a phone I've had with a genuine software bug until my first BlackBerry, and that was updateable.
Android in particular is spoiling us for both quality and freshness.
In PC software, it was also not so long ago that if you shipped something buggy, you got to mail out CDs or diskettes of patches, and of course had a patch management system that made it all work. WordPerfect had issues in the 4.x releases that caused these shipments. Sun got so fed up with patches to Solaris that they implemented an early Web-based distrtibution system when Usenet was still the favored way to get large files of anything. Sun cost Fedex a pretty penny by putting an end to worldwide shipments of patches, and good for them.
Today, we tolerate both poor quality software and rapid patch cycles, because we have a relatively ubiquitous infrastructure (the Internet) to support it. Microsoft is not alone in relying on this to cover over a multitude of sins, from kssing/broken features to of course constant security issues. Picking a biggest offender on this area is pointless.
Windows Mobile I haven't had, but it seems that WM is not that much worse than any other phone software when it comes to patches and bugs. Android is struggling with fragmentation, with phones that 'can't' run the latest version. My G1 is way behind, and will not get 2.1 officially, Samsung is currently facing a lot of user outrage over the Behold 2 not getting Android 2.1 as 'promised'. Windows Mobile phones are legendary for the lack of OS upgrades, usually because the new version just needs more than the old phone can deliver, but sometimes because the manufacturer will not license the new version. Hey, it's a jungle out there.
So the admonition that "ship crap that it might fix later on" is bad is just so obvious it defies logic. why say that out loud? However, it IS ok, so far, to promise to upgrade later, and maybe not do so. It seems to be ok to ship crap and fix it, despite the whole issue of making a phone work from day one - see Google and the Nexuis One for an example of apparently poor testing and immediate negastive feedback from users. Not even a phone number to call, and calling the carrier resulted in 'talk to Google' for a response.
It's not so much about shipping crap now, as it is responding to problems and quick resolutions. Kinda sad, but we are in an immediate world, and we are tolerating crap.
Having said that, where do you turn for excellence out-of-the-box? Is Nokia still shipping great phones that work?
"or - we're frakked, because the aliens will turn out to be total badasses; due to evolving in very harsh conditions"
Hmmm...
Since anything other then *your* native environment will probly seem 'harsh', especially if you have the habit of visting all sorts of planets, visitors will probably show up here and either stay in their ships as they hose us with directed-energy weapons or spray us with whatever biological goo does us as they wish us to be done. Unlikely that they will land and walk out all crip and neat like Anna, but then again they may send cyborgs to interact with us. Disposal, assimilation or submission comes later, when they have enough data for an assessment, assuming they care at all.
But if they are somewhat more primitive, then we might get visitors that are in exposure suits, and we might be able to nick a few before they get the hang of it here.
Either way, leading with nukes and F-16s will not be our best shot. Smallpox might kill them off faster, and we can clean that up easier than worldwide nukes. Then it's the choice, do we kill the invaders and 30% of our population, or wait for a better strategy to come out of the Resistance?
ps - I'm not concerned at all.... It's just interesting.
"Medien Patent Verwaltung originally claimed that Warner was infringing on patent 7,187,633, called "Motion Picture and Anti-Piracy Coding," but as The Hollywood Reporter discovered, the patent going by that particular name actually bears a different number and is held by none other than Warner Bros. MPV's attorney in New York acknowledged the error and said that the suit will be refiled with the proper information."
Is this funny that MPV's attorney mixed up patent name, or pathetic that MVP's attorney can't keep the patent name straight?
Or both?
If it were me, I would have a backup lawyer. Just in case. Not an auspicious start.
"for the use of technology as an enabling mechanism for government."
I'm not sure I want my government enabled any more than it is. Ineffective oversight of offshore oil drilling, failed immigration control, failed financial oversight, my government needs to do some things that are just not that hard, and don't need technology to do them. Only three of many examples shown. C'mon, Obama, fix your own house, eh?
"I have one simple requirement: all laws must be written in a Wiki with full history."
Of all the things that need improvement, our legislative record and US Codes is not one of them. Sure, a Wiki would be more convenient. But if you want to know more about a law, there are MANY sources. Another Wiki doesn't fix anything. It's all out there, and duplicating the data just de-normalizes things. Several universities have excellent sources of legislative action and history.
Now, publishing documents in open formats would be useful. Disclosing political campaign donations in REAL TIME would be very enlightening. Correlating lobbying and corporate behavior, legislative action, and campaign financing would also be enlightening. Opening up some datasets, as the Census Bureau has started to do, would be useful. Raw data is always great, and raw data on political contributors, etc. would shed light on a dark process. A good thing.
I'm never going to infect my computer with a rhinovirus, or a common cold, or polio. It's not going to get smallpox (even in the lab), chickenpox, or herpes.
When we start making computers out of biological components, then we can have this discussion. In the meantime, I could implant an infected chip in my shoe and make a claim.
Stupid.
notes is where Kapor got the idea for, um, Notes. Look it up.
Not to mention a few multiplayer games, in virtually every genre, that would have been MMOs except for the problems of any lesson being massive. I saw 25 users in Avatar pretty regular, and once I think I saw 42, but that might have been my imagination. Gaming was bit on PLATO, especially in the UICU days. The times it reported to to be running 24.9 hours a day were fun times indeed.
In 1973, I was learning digital logic, microprocessors, and microwave technology in the USAF. Some time around 1988 I got into Plato courtesy of the University of Maine. I also got kicked off, being just a little to far to the right for =events=. After more than a year hearing how I was Rush Linmbaugh's butt boy, I moved to southern Maine and *actually* heard him for the first time. Hmm. Yup, they were half-way correct - I was where Rush was. Not a good place to debate apartheid and the savings & loan scandals with a bunch of college professors and Marxist students. But it was fun while it lasted. Sorry for all the problems, mainei. They restored the group from backups, right?
I still play avatar on Cyber1. Still good fun. Lots of stats, so come play Zavatar, the economy isn't ruined like the original, and the studs don't own everything yet.
"dihydrogen monoxide"
Please contact K'breel and get an update - this rover was assaulted with carbon dioxide.
Or was it another tribe???
"True, but with my WinMo or Android phone, I still have control over my own device...not the other way around."
When was the last time you tried to update the OS on your WinMo phone? Much open source software for it? If your phone doesn't support WinMo v whatever, you generally ain't gettin' it. When WinMo 7 comes out, you will hear the gnashing of teeth as everyone finds out their 6-month-old phone won't do it.
My Android phone (G1) is a different matter. If you're willing to root it, you can get a lot. Since Froyo is not coming to the G1 officially, I will have to root to get the goodies. No idea if Flash 10.1 will actually work on it, but the modders are very clever.
"I especially can't deal with a company restricting people more and more and laughing all the way to the bank while they do it."
The description "a company restricting people more and more and laughing all the way to the bank" covers a lot of ground. I hope you've managed to avoid all you can, utilities and employers excepted.
By design, all claims that the Improbability Drive doesn't actually work are false.
Claims that it doesn't work well are also false.
Nice try, though. Tea is the secret. They only MEASURED Brownian motion, no word on how they might either predict it, control it, or even duplicate it. But if they could in fact duplicate a Brownian circumstance, the Improbablity Drive stil works, because, well, despite the elegant engineering, it is improbably successful. Or something like that. Keep your towel handy.
The point is, they won't miss you for a moment. Your freedom will not equal punishing or costing Apple in any measurable way.
And do go ahead, buy something else, like I do. You don't need to make them suffer to enjoy your choices. But railing against Apple (or any other successful company that diminishes you) is pointless. Get over it. They will do fine without you.
Now, I dare you to find a substitute that has a measurably better attitude. Google? Microsoft? Any cell company? Any call phone/player/netbook maker? All are compromised by profit.
If Apple can make a comfortable profit with their market share, that is success.
Jobs doesn't NEED to give control to the users if Apple is profitable. Now, show me what phone out there beats iTunes, cause it's all about iTunes.
Let me repeat - it is ALL about iTunes.
This is actually better than your usual juvenile AC drivel. Oh, for a mod point...
Not bad. You have promise.
"during what is in theory a show supposedly there to educate us on issues..."
You do not have a grasp of how most 'news' shows work, nor their intentions.
Most of what purports to be a 'news show' is mostly the thinnest, least incisive presentation of an issue. Most often, they are regurgitations of some other party or source, which is ok, but no depth. Jon Stewart does this exceedingly well, as he usually just has to read the blurb and it just speaks for itself. Occassionally he embellishes for effect. Most are a mix of 'news' (facts, etc) and opinion. Examples of the mix are, in my opinion, Situation Room, Rachel Maddow, etc. Some are purely opinion, such as O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck, and wow I have to think of a left-leaning example - oh yea, Anderson Cooper, Campbell Brown (and I liked her a LOT), Keith Olberman, and a long list.
The problem is discerning between news and opinion, more precisely between journalism and opinion. This is not easy, because most of the Op Ed types want to declare their opinion as so true and accurate that it is just a fact, deal with it and get on board please. This afflicts the Left AND the Right. Discerning the difference is where we need to be careful and get it right, lest we believe everything we read or see. Of course, Op Ed types SHOULD be presenting their opinion as the right one; who would listen to someone who asks you to listen to them 'almost get it right, maybe, I'm not really sure...'?
Examples abound, and I won't offer any. But news shows are often anything but. I don't fault them for no being journalistic. I fault them for not being honest about what they are.
ps - Each broadcasting network has its own bias, a fact of life. Newspapers were legendary for this when they were more relevant. Nothing has changed. Again, discerning the bias is important.
Yuh. I go to look for a particular designer's eyeglass frames, and I don't get ads for that designer's frames, nor do I get ads for eyeglasses or even sunglasses.
I get ads that send me to link farms, malware hatcheries, FAKE shopping sites, etc. Seems the evil advertisers pay more to get to the top of the list.
Pus.
'losing evidence'
In an unguarded moment, we do accept that they have some 'right' to the information.
It's not even that easy, I know...
Just wrap it in tin foil, and keep the rays from getting to it and commanding the wipe.
Act quickly...
Later, keep it inside the Faraday cage you have constructed. You HAVE constructed the cage, right? If it's GSM, pull the SIM. If not, well, the cage will need to be expanded to be comfortable...
Any questions?
I agree entirely, I think, with everthing you write. Save for one thing...
An acknowledgment of religious views of the creation of the Universe has a place in science texts, I believe, not because it expresses a scientific view, but because it addresses beliefs held by at least a noticeable portion of Americans, and should focus not on a theological exposition but rather to at least present the general view and encourage students to consider it, along with other competing views on the origin of the Universe. The scientific method does not discard alternate theories without at least a minimal exploration of them, if only to point out obvious flaws.
And we seem to be heading down a road in public education in America where it may be impossible to offer a comparitive religion class in public schools. It seems, from my vantage point (a biased one, I admit, though I try to overcome that) that you must respect all religions except Christianity. I'm not asking for special treatement, but I get it. You might understand better than many ./'rs why that seems so easy to do for so many people. In the interim, however, I'm not as concerned or militant as I might be.
I'm dismayed that so many Christians are compelled to challenge the physical evidence of God's creation. It's irrefutable. It's also a mystery. Ask any three well-considered physicists how the Universe was created. You may get four different opinions.
Hoist with my own petard, methinks. Arggg!
"Is your god a just, good, and loving god or an evil, selfish, vindictive god?"
An interesting question, both because he can be all things, and because it is irrelevant to our discussion.
"Most of the men who found the United States of America were, in fact, deists, not christians."
Benjamin Franklin, a self-proclaimed deist, recommended that the Constitutional Convention, then meeting in relative secrecy, appoint a chaplain. Thereafter, the convention opened each session in prayer, after a brief interruption to reorganize in the wake of that contentious meeting where Franklin appealsed for a chaplain and prayers.
Franklin's best statement about his beliefs might be the one a few weeks before his death. Perhaps most telling is his comment:"and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble". This does present a problem, as to be considered a Christian today would require, generally, that you accept Christ as God's only son. I, for one, would not be inclined to challenge Mr. Franklin's beliefs soley on that basis. But in the letter referenced above, Franklin seemed to express a very common belief among churches and believers at the time. Strictly, no, Franklin was not a Chrtistian. His beliefs, however, were not atheist. You may win this argument, but Franklin's words seem to bring him closer to Christianty than not.
The Contintental Congress first opened in prayer on September 7, 1774. Not very inclusive, granted, but not atheist.
"Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Article VI seems to include the Constitution, laws, and treaties. Are you claiming that the Treaty of Tripoli
supercedes the Constitution? Or that it amplifies it? I would propose that the treaty of Tripoli, along with all others is subject to constitutional checks, as are all other laws and agreements of the nation. More to the point, however, I wrote:
"From there, you can easily teach that while we may have been founded as a Christian nation, we are not exclusively Christian now, nor even then"
I did not claim that American WAS founded as a Christian nation, and while I believe we wre intended to be founded as one, I also believe that as a Christian nation that we need not, and indeed should not, nor were we intended to oppress others nor conduct our affairs as if there is only the one true God and all others should yield to him. Rather, it is Christian to care for others, show compassion to all no matter their beliefs or even their attitude and behavior towards you, and recognize that not all will accept Christ, and loving them despite that. Now, being an Islamic nation does not seem to permit a very charitable attitude to non-Muslims. I'm not sure there is a good example of Buddhism as government to rely on, though the Dalai Lama seems to be a peaceful and genuine leader, and Tibet seems to be as peaceful as they can be given that they are under direct persecution, invasion, and destruction by China.
If I were teaching US History as it was taught to me in 1971, I would be exploring the beliefs of the founding fathers, and recognizing the diversity of those beliefs. I would also be teaching how these and other beliefs have impacted our nation,
"Seriously? If you've got a 3TB drive, are you seriously suggesting a person be counting wasted bytes?"
Seriously, if you bought a 3TB drive, and you actually intend to use it, then the wasted space problem is as relevant as it was when you needed a 300MB drive. It's just scale, the argument is not invalidated.
"I'm sorry, I'm Canadian."
oh, NOW I get it.
I'm a Christian, and a Creationist. Yup.
If you want to know if I believe God created all we are aware, if, yes, I believe he did.
If you want to know if I know HOW he did it, well, I dunno. If evolution explains it suffuciently for science to make sense of it all, I'm fine with that.
Here's the details of my belief;
1. God declares himself to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnisicent. This means, to me, that he can do anything he wants, and he can be anywere, in fact everywhere, and know everything, even the future. All of this depends on him being omnipotent. You don't have to agree with me to understand my belief, ok?
1a. God also declares himself to have existed for all time. This gets complicated to some, but if God created the Universe, he existed outside of it (making something implies you are not PART of it, it did not exist until you made it, therefore you existed before it, be it a cake or the Universe.) Again, you can disagree, this is my expression of what I believe. And yes, I beleive I am correct, but I'm making these points so you might understand better why I make them, and my conclusions.
2. If God is in fact onmipotent, then he can indeed create anything he wants - including the Universe.
3. If God is onmipotent, then he can also create the Universe as he wishes. This includes creating it all at once, over the span of a week, or billions of years. And he can choose to make all of this appear as if it were made in a week, billions of years, or even instantly. Yes, he can make fossils, create artifacts that appear ancient to us, or he could have made Earth billions of years ago and work the processes to give us this world we see today.
4. The Bible, in the book of Genesis, does state that God created the world (and the Universe according to most scholars) in six days. We can have a frank discussion on what a day is to God, and if this is a literal translation of a 24-hour day or not, but in the end, my point 3 explains my belief that if he wanted to do it in six days and make it look like billions of years, he could.
In light of these beliefs, I am not compelled to challenge evolution as a viable scientific theory. I am not threatened by teaching it as established fact, though of course we still call it theory - science calls many things 'theory' that are settled science. However, I am somewhat dismayed that the discussion has devolved into an 'either-or' choice. A single paragraph in a science text, pointing out that many religions have other explanations for the creation of the Universe and of life on Earth would satisfy me. Christianity isn't the only faith that has a creation story. And offering minimal challenges to evolutionary theory doesn't seem to me to be a big deal, though this needs to be presented to students when they can grasp the concept of alternative views and competing theories. In other words, teach our children to think and excercise critical discernment, and this will not be a problem.
The Texas Board of Education does need correction in this matter. I am not the one to offer it to them. And we probably need some way to print more than one version of a science text. In this age of books-on-demand, electronic delivery, and the many other advances in printing, we can do a lot better. The textbook publishers are the problem here, not a bunch of self-serving administrators in ANY state of the Union.
Sheesh.
ps- From what I've seen over the past 3 decades, history texts in particular have been edited in the direction of a definite liberal/leftist bias, with blatant re-writing of historical events and slanted descriptions and conclusions. I don't want to see it turn to the right - I want it history taught as HISTORY, facts and reality, with opinion and conclusions labelled as such. Get the facts right first, please.
A good example of this would be to teach the reality that many of the men who founded our nation (the U.S.) were devout and active Christians, and their faith influenced thei