You're clearly not interested in the philisophical or ethical arguments for and against Dawkins views, and since you seem to qualify Strobel as a 'creationist', as if that disqualifies his opinion, then you will also disqualify my views, since I also am a creationist.
Save that I need not define Creation, as written in the Book of Genesis, as an event that required only 144 hours for God to complete. Defining the hebrew word yom as a day is inaccurate and needless. If God is who He says He is, then He certainly has the ability to do all this in 6 days, and even to make it indistinguishable from a billion-year universe. But you do not believe God is who He says He is, so you wil not merely discredit the Bible, but ignore it as anything but ficiton. Your right to do so.
In particular, I focus first on Dawkins' lack of investigation into the theology he attempts to refute, so much so that he gets many things wrong. His defense is that he need not study that which is so clearly wrong and delusional. As an example, an excerpt from a review of 'The God Delusion':
"Dawkins doesn't seem to understand Aquinas' proofs for the existence of a supreme being (pp. 100-103). Partly, I suspect, because he isn't engaging the Aristotelian concepts of 'cause'. The reason Dawkins gives for their failure, however, is that "they make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress" (p. 101). Of course, in Aquinas' arguments, 'god' is that which is by definition immune from regress."
Since Dawkins entirely rejects the existence of God, he also does not even attempt to explore the attributes of God, of only to discredit and disprove their validity, possibility, or relevance.
In general, Dawkins is leading modern Atheism down the path of total denial of spirituality and religion, to faithfully reject it as impossibly meaningless, and most importantly to deny the possibility of any fact to support even the belief in it. Nice work if you can get it, but not even scientific, as a scientific analysis of religion could not start from denying it. Dawkins, however, is only interested in descrediting religion, so indeed he won't be evaluating it much.
But you wanted a factual error. So here we are.
In 'The God Delusion', Dawkins wrote:
"I oppose fundamentalist religion because it is hell-bent on ruining the scientific education of countless eager minds. "
I reject his premise as demonstrably untrue, factually and philisphically.
I begin with the premise that, for Dawkins, virtually all religion is 'fundamentalist', in that he defines it;
"Fundamentalists know they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book and they know, in advance, that nothing will budge them from their belief. The truth of the holy book is an axiom, not the end product of a process of reasoning. The book is true, and if the evidence seems to contradict it, it is the evidence that must be thrown out, not the book."
By this definition, most Christians are 'fundamentalist' believers.
How many Christian universities in the United States alone teach empirical science, and do so at a very advanced level, unfettered by censorship from 'fundamentalist' clergy, even when the clergy operates and controls the university?
Examples of 'christian' founded and/or oprerated colleges in the U.S. include:
Boston College - founded by the Jesuits in 1863. The Jesuits should pass the 'fundamentalist' test.
Fordham University and Georgetown also were founded by Jesuits. Do any of these institutions seem to be "hell-bent on ruining the scientific education of countless eager minds"?
Indeed, Dawkins starts out in most cases mistating the intentions of religion, and never looking back. He doesn't merely get it wrong, he makes such statements that cannot be held to be true, and further doesn't bother to engage in discussion of this.
His statement, as I quoted above, is on its face false.
We've got a crew of.NET developers writing us an updated replacement to an existing VB app. I keep calling the new interface Fisher-Price, but actually it's Hasbro. I was mistaken, but an easy mistake to make.
Where it should absolutely take two clicks to make something happen, they found a way to make it five. Where you should enter a date, they found a way to not allow special characters, like '/'. Where you should enter an address, well, no spaces allowed. Basic functionality is lacking for several features, but the interface is there.
And no help files yet, despite beta release pending in a few days. In fact, though we have well over 1,000 pages of documentation, there seems to be no functional install that preserves the users' data in case they need to reinstall. I'm told that the next build introduces that.
For all the fancy IDEs, tools, etc, these guys are still not getting it done. I dare not say how far behind schedule this is, nor what the actual platform is, or someone will guess and raise hell over how anyone could be so insensitive as to speak the truth.
Your tools mean crap, if you're incapable. Just as your plumber would probably suck at actually making the pipe, your developers will suck if they don't 'get' what your users actually do.
Of course, it would help if they asked what the users actually do.
But I'm not bitter. I get to support this. Plenty of work.
More like holding gun manufacturers responsible for murders committed by firearms. Or holding the cutlery industry liable for stabbings, especially with kitchen knives. Or perhaps we should consider holding drain cleaner makers liable for poisonings by their products?
The movie industry wants to ignore the legitimate uses of the Internet because they wish us to believe that the harm they suffer from infringement entirely voids the legal use of the Internet?
I don't agree. Let's keep that idea out of the U.S. as long as possible, k?
Blogs are going to be another morass of evil, because of so many that just regurgitate/copy/mimic each other, the insecurity problem, and the general lameness of nobody saying nothing.
And Google gets to look good on this, which is not really making me feel warm & fuzzy.
Wikipedia is going to suffer the same fate as Usenet and IRC.
In the beginning, it was a magnificent user community, and great value was derived from it.
Then it was exploited. Users started editing articles to suit their own views, opinions, biases. Usenet got full of groups with very narrow focuses. IRC of course got overwhelmed by bots and wars.
Now, anyone with integrity is suffering under the rules that keep the idiots, griefers, and those who prefer to make Wikipedia into their propaganda instrument from succeeding.
I tried once to create an article, and it got both rejected and re-edited. Among the things I did/did not do to annoy the editors:
- Not enough links on terms and subjects to other articles. This was an article on a game-playing experience. I didn't think linking to 'video games', 'role-paying games', etc was useful, but then Im not a very good Wikipedia article writer, so I'm not into it.
- No attribution. Ok, this was an expression of my experience. Attribution? check the author. Ok, it wasn't very suitable for Wikipedia, despite being written by me in direct response to a request for some more details on the game...
Overall this is sadly predictable. Wikipedia is becoming important, which makes it important to get things right, and so long as that community had to deal with contributors editing articles for their own purposes, it was a matter of time before the process drove away even the dedicated contributors.
Wikipedia will die out slowly, or will attract new contributors and fix the process so they don't walk away in disgust.
My wife is a 25-year veteran music teacher, mostly in middle school.
She laments the collapse of discipline, disrespect bordering on abuse of teachers, and most students' unwillingness to exert themselves in any meaningful way. She doesn't think this started 25 years ago, but she doesn't have a good estimate of when either.
I would agree. Seeing her students, God bless them, but nost of them are pathetic. Of course, most of them have home lives that are ruinous. So fixing society might indeed be the first step. But that supposes we are writing off at least one generation, and maybe two.
But my wife would not blame the sad state of education on teachers' behavior in the lunch room, or even local governments, though they are struggling. She blames both a societal collapse, single-parent families, and the intercession of the Federal Government.
- Societal collapse; lack of respect, an attitude of entitlement, lack of accountability, etc. You know this drill.
- Single-parent families; lack of attention, child-raising by strangers, poor role models, lack of discipline, teelvsion etc as the babysitter, the list goes on.
- Intercession of Federal Government; Local governments are much more accountable, responsive, and responsible. the proof of this is the complaining about NCLB. I took standardized tests in high school, back in 1968-1972. Seems to have been a good idea then. SATs are standardized tests, and while they have problems, they are not blamed for the sad state of education today. And the truth is, the test all high school students need to pass is to be able to fill out a job application or a college admission form. Tests are the reality. Failure is always possible...
As an aside, our President proposes to re-emphasize science education. Perhaps he should fund NASA as well? Mixed messages. Not uncommon for this Administration, but we don't have to accept the status quo, right?
Netbooks are marketed as something you just throw in your purse or backpack and whip out when you need it.
I bet they get a lot of abuse, and users cry about how it didn't last too long being tossed into the messenger bag and being sat on while busing back and forth across campus.
I'm surprised they last as well as they do. A 25%+ failure rate over 3 years is pretty good. I would expect that to be an annual failure rate. People treat their portable PCs like crap.
When I sold maintenance agreements on notebooks, I billed them a 75% premium if they didn't let me see it at least once in 12 months. Tightening up the hinges and covers and cleaning out the fan adds years to the life of many notebooks. I didn't take Thinkpads under maintenance cause I advised my clients they were tougher than that. I didn't take Dell machines cause they just don't support them. No parts. HP/Compaq were not my favorites, though they work. Toshiba I avoid, Acer I actually like. I have an Acer 1846 that is still going, though I just put in my third DC power jack. At least I can solder that board without it crinkling up like a piece of tissue paper.
Verizon's charging for 'accidental' data usage isn't at all 'new', though they may have toughened their stance and are even more determined than before to screw you for brushing the key. The link even points out that back then the customer was billed for data usage for a phone locked in a drawer at the time. Needless to say, it was a backup service that, while being a 'free service', actually costs data, so if you don't have a data plan, signing up for the 'free' contact backup service dinged you for data you didn't sign up for... A new definition of 'free', eh? You can imagine how easy it is to get your phone's data features blocked - not happening.
And the cruel truth is that a $1.99 data charge like these amounts to pure profit. Verizon (and other carriers) would L-O-V-E to be able to increase their profit by $1.99/month PER SUBSCRIBER! This would be a massive win, by any measure!
Thieves.
But cranking up the ETR for smartphones is just plain offensive. T-Mobile is now offering plans that let you buy the phone in installments - of course, if you cancel the contract or terminate service, they expect to be paid. But, sheesh, if you buy a phone from Verizon, ditch your service, and pay the $350, does that cover the balance on the phone? I wonder.
The reality is, we may need to get ready to start buying phones like Europeans do - straight up, no discount. Unlike Europe, however, if you change carriers, you generally NEED a new phone. Verizon & Sprint, etc. use CDMA, so you need an unlocked phone to move from one to the other. AT&T and T-Mobile etc. use GSM, but wait - if you unlock your phone, it won't get 3G data on the 'other' carrier, they use different bands. So GSM phones are no solution until everyone stops with the different bands, which means jiggering the spectrum allocations and licenses, sharing networks, fixing roaming, and doing all sorts of things that they pretty much forced carriers to do in the EU, but are entirely within the competitive arena here.
We're not getting past this problem of locked phones and subsidies any time soon. It is technically not yet feasible, and I see no solution short of consolidating carriers into just two - CDMA & GSM.
And that would be ugly.
Getting some carrier to run the 700MHz spectrum nationwide doesn't solve this. It just adds a third phone type to all the crazyness.
So just get used to even more abusive behavior by the usual abusive carriers. Our only hope is to stop being so addicted to our phones. You go first, ok?
Actually, why not give me a way to prevent the offensive ad loads, especially the hidden/cloaked ads? All these do is slow down my page load and cheat the advertisers. Wait, this is a 50/50 win for me... Well, maybe, but it still makes me wait for nothing I even suspect I want.
There you go again, egging us on to use such tools with no legitimate use for actual *legal* purposes.
Somewhere, the CEOs of Comcast, Time-Warner, the RIAA, and AT&T have collectively felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if most of their objections to actual legitimate Internet use were suddenly silenced...
... if they had electronic access to my bank accounts AND credit accounts.... if they had the keys to my house.... if they had the keys to my car.... if they had direct access to my computers.
or,... if they had more interesting and desirable content to offer me.... if they charged a somewhat more reasonable price for their current content.... if they made it easier for me to get what I was interested in.... if they focused on value and quality.... if they opened distribution to more providers.... if they focused less on prosecuting innocent people, and more on their business.
Sheesh. Epic Fail To Get It. Are we gonna have to write to the FCC and remind them how stupid this is?
Deterrence - fines, jail, suspension. Start the fines at $450, 48 hours jail on second offense, 3 month suspension in 3rd offense. Increment as seems proper. After 6 offenses, it looks like they would be texting from the bus, or their bicycle. The latter is where mandatory health insurance finally makes sense.
Ostracization - all the usual public campaigns. Of course ratting out drivers you are next to on the highway will come into play.
Non-technical solutions. Cheap, maybe even self-financing.
And don't think of finding a way to disable texting on my phone, you %^&holes. Do the above, and I expect there will be an app to do text-to-speech. As if there isn't one already.
Much as I love texting on the highway, I can put it down...
Apple will not be selling OS X for other hardware ever.
Not having to support every wack piece of hardware and rely on manufacturers for info, SDKs, or even to write drivers is a blessing, and lets Apple both deliver excellent, reliable products, and focus on excellence, not merely surviving each minor update.
Slashdot Mirror
You're clearly not interested in the philisophical or ethical arguments for and against Dawkins views, and since you seem to qualify Strobel as a 'creationist', as if that disqualifies his opinion, then you will also disqualify my views, since I also am a creationist.
Save that I need not define Creation, as written in the Book of Genesis, as an event that required only 144 hours for God to complete. Defining the hebrew word yom as a day is inaccurate and needless. If God is who He says He is, then He certainly has the ability to do all this in 6 days, and even to make it indistinguishable from a billion-year universe. But you do not believe God is who He says He is, so you wil not merely discredit the Bible, but ignore it as anything but ficiton. Your right to do so.
In particular, I focus first on Dawkins' lack of investigation into the theology he attempts to refute, so much so that he gets many things wrong. His defense is that he need not study that which is so clearly wrong and delusional. As an example, an excerpt from a review of 'The God Delusion':
"Dawkins doesn't seem to understand Aquinas' proofs for the existence of a supreme being (pp. 100-103). Partly, I suspect, because he isn't engaging the Aristotelian concepts of 'cause'. The reason Dawkins gives for their failure, however, is that "they make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress" (p. 101). Of course, in Aquinas' arguments, 'god' is that which is by definition immune from regress."
Since Dawkins entirely rejects the existence of God, he also does not even attempt to explore the attributes of God, of only to discredit and disprove their validity, possibility, or relevance.
In general, Dawkins is leading modern Atheism down the path of total denial of spirituality and religion, to faithfully reject it as impossibly meaningless, and most importantly to deny the possibility of any fact to support even the belief in it. Nice work if you can get it, but not even scientific, as a scientific analysis of religion could not start from denying it. Dawkins, however, is only interested in descrediting religion, so indeed he won't be evaluating it much.
But you wanted a factual error. So here we are.
In 'The God Delusion', Dawkins wrote:
"I oppose fundamentalist religion because it is hell-bent on ruining the scientific education of countless eager minds. "
I reject his premise as demonstrably untrue, factually and philisphically.
I begin with the premise that, for Dawkins, virtually all religion is 'fundamentalist', in that he defines it;
"Fundamentalists know they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book and they know, in advance, that nothing will budge them from their belief. The truth of the holy book is an axiom, not the end product of a process of reasoning. The book is true, and if the evidence seems to contradict it, it is the evidence that must be thrown out, not the book."
By this definition, most Christians are 'fundamentalist' believers.
How many Christian universities in the United States alone teach empirical science, and do so at a very advanced level, unfettered by censorship from 'fundamentalist' clergy, even when the clergy operates and controls the university?
Examples of 'christian' founded and/or oprerated colleges in the U.S. include:
Boston College - founded by the Jesuits in 1863. The Jesuits should pass the 'fundamentalist' test.
Fordham University and Georgetown also were founded by Jesuits. Do any of these institutions seem to be "hell-bent on ruining the scientific education of countless eager minds"?
Indeed, Dawkins starts out in most cases mistating the intentions of religion, and never looking back. He doesn't merely get it wrong, he makes such statements that cannot be held to be true, and further doesn't bother to engage in discussion of this.
His statement, as I quoted above, is on its face false.
read Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ". Then get back to me.
We've got a crew of .NET developers writing us an updated replacement to an existing VB app. I keep calling the new interface Fisher-Price, but actually it's Hasbro. I was mistaken, but an easy mistake to make.
Where it should absolutely take two clicks to make something happen, they found a way to make it five. Where you should enter a date, they found a way to not allow special characters, like '/'. Where you should enter an address, well, no spaces allowed. Basic functionality is lacking for several features, but the interface is there.
And no help files yet, despite beta release pending in a few days. In fact, though we have well over 1,000 pages of documentation, there seems to be no functional install that preserves the users' data in case they need to reinstall. I'm told that the next build introduces that.
For all the fancy IDEs, tools, etc, these guys are still not getting it done. I dare not say how far behind schedule this is, nor what the actual platform is, or someone will guess and raise hell over how anyone could be so insensitive as to speak the truth.
Your tools mean crap, if you're incapable. Just as your plumber would probably suck at actually making the pipe, your developers will suck if they don't 'get' what your users actually do.
Of course, it would help if they asked what the users actually do.
But I'm not bitter. I get to support this. Plenty of work.
More like holding gun manufacturers responsible for murders committed by firearms. Or holding the cutlery industry liable for stabbings, especially with kitchen knives. Or perhaps we should consider holding drain cleaner makers liable for poisonings by their products?
The movie industry wants to ignore the legitimate uses of the Internet because they wish us to believe that the harm they suffer from infringement entirely voids the legal use of the Internet?
I don't agree. Let's keep that idea out of the U.S. as long as possible, k?
Thieves.
And he has a way of ignoring facts that don't agree with his premise.
That's facile. You need to read his work.
Care to cite an example? First, of course, where he refutes his opposition. Then to prove his points.
You do know what his point is, don't you?
Notice Dawkins doesn't seem willing to apply the same test to his views, despite the reality that he is asking us to *believe* him?
Try harder, please.
But I just shrugged these off as random malware.
Blogs are going to be another morass of evil, because of so many that just regurgitate/copy/mimic each other, the insecurity problem, and the general lameness of nobody saying nothing.
And Google gets to look good on this, which is not really making me feel warm & fuzzy.
Wikipedia is going to suffer the same fate as Usenet and IRC.
In the beginning, it was a magnificent user community, and great value was derived from it.
Then it was exploited. Users started editing articles to suit their own views, opinions, biases. Usenet got full of groups with very narrow focuses. IRC of course got overwhelmed by bots and wars.
Now, anyone with integrity is suffering under the rules that keep the idiots, griefers, and those who prefer to make Wikipedia into their propaganda instrument from succeeding.
I tried once to create an article, and it got both rejected and re-edited. Among the things I did/did not do to annoy the editors:
- Not enough links on terms and subjects to other articles. This was an article on a game-playing experience. I didn't think linking to 'video games', 'role-paying games', etc was useful, but then Im not a very good Wikipedia article writer, so I'm not into it.
- No attribution. Ok, this was an expression of my experience. Attribution? check the author. Ok, it wasn't very suitable for Wikipedia, despite being written by me in direct response to a request for some more details on the game...
Overall this is sadly predictable. Wikipedia is becoming important, which makes it important to get things right, and so long as that community had to deal with contributors editing articles for their own purposes, it was a matter of time before the process drove away even the dedicated contributors.
Wikipedia will die out slowly, or will attract new contributors and fix the process so they don't walk away in disgust.
My wife is a 25-year veteran music teacher, mostly in middle school.
She laments the collapse of discipline, disrespect bordering on abuse of teachers, and most students' unwillingness to exert themselves in any meaningful way. She doesn't think this started 25 years ago, but she doesn't have a good estimate of when either.
I would agree. Seeing her students, God bless them, but nost of them are pathetic. Of course, most of them have home lives that are ruinous. So fixing society might indeed be the first step. But that supposes we are writing off at least one generation, and maybe two.
But my wife would not blame the sad state of education on teachers' behavior in the lunch room, or even local governments, though they are struggling. She blames both a societal collapse, single-parent families, and the intercession of the Federal Government.
- Societal collapse; lack of respect, an attitude of entitlement, lack of accountability, etc. You know this drill.
- Single-parent families; lack of attention, child-raising by strangers, poor role models, lack of discipline, teelvsion etc as the babysitter, the list goes on.
- Intercession of Federal Government; Local governments are much more accountable, responsive, and responsible. the proof of this is the complaining about NCLB. I took standardized tests in high school, back in 1968-1972. Seems to have been a good idea then. SATs are standardized tests, and while they have problems, they are not blamed for the sad state of education today. And the truth is, the test all high school students need to pass is to be able to fill out a job application or a college admission form. Tests are the reality. Failure is always possible...
As an aside, our President proposes to re-emphasize science education. Perhaps he should fund NASA as well? Mixed messages. Not uncommon for this Administration, but we don't have to accept the status quo, right?
"Almost all of the increase this decade occurred after 2000"
And how much of the increase this decade would have occurred BEFORE 2000?
Honestly, sometimes the global warming crew just makes me weep. Can they at least start thinking again?
?
Netbooks are marketed as something you just throw in your purse or backpack and whip out when you need it.
I bet they get a lot of abuse, and users cry about how it didn't last too long being tossed into the messenger bag and being sat on while busing back and forth across campus.
I'm surprised they last as well as they do. A 25%+ failure rate over 3 years is pretty good. I would expect that to be an annual failure rate. People treat their portable PCs like crap.
When I sold maintenance agreements on notebooks, I billed them a 75% premium if they didn't let me see it at least once in 12 months. Tightening up the hinges and covers and cleaning out the fan adds years to the life of many notebooks. I didn't take Thinkpads under maintenance cause I advised my clients they were tougher than that. I didn't take Dell machines cause they just don't support them. No parts. HP/Compaq were not my favorites, though they work. Toshiba I avoid, Acer I actually like. I have an Acer 1846 that is still going, though I just put in my third DC power jack. At least I can solder that board without it crinkling up like a piece of tissue paper.
Android users are cheap bastids.
This is not a troll, it is not a flame, it is the truth. Mod me down if you are resistant to the truth.
Which means I will suffer...
Maybe your phone rings long enough for this to be of any use to YOU, but I can't make mine ring long enough to bother.
Verizon's charging for 'accidental' data usage isn't at all 'new', though they may have toughened their stance and are even more determined than before to screw you for brushing the key. The link even points out that back then the customer was billed for data usage for a phone locked in a drawer at the time. Needless to say, it was a backup service that, while being a 'free service', actually costs data, so if you don't have a data plan, signing up for the 'free' contact backup service dinged you for data you didn't sign up for... A new definition of 'free', eh? You can imagine how easy it is to get your phone's data features blocked - not happening.
And the cruel truth is that a $1.99 data charge like these amounts to pure profit. Verizon (and other carriers) would L-O-V-E to be able to increase their profit by $1.99/month PER SUBSCRIBER! This would be a massive win, by any measure!
Thieves.
But cranking up the ETR for smartphones is just plain offensive. T-Mobile is now offering plans that let you buy the phone in installments - of course, if you cancel the contract or terminate service, they expect to be paid. But, sheesh, if you buy a phone from Verizon, ditch your service, and pay the $350, does that cover the balance on the phone? I wonder.
The reality is, we may need to get ready to start buying phones like Europeans do - straight up, no discount. Unlike Europe, however, if you change carriers, you generally NEED a new phone. Verizon & Sprint, etc. use CDMA, so you need an unlocked phone to move from one to the other. AT&T and T-Mobile etc. use GSM, but wait - if you unlock your phone, it won't get 3G data on the 'other' carrier, they use different bands. So GSM phones are no solution until everyone stops with the different bands, which means jiggering the spectrum allocations and licenses, sharing networks, fixing roaming, and doing all sorts of things that they pretty much forced carriers to do in the EU, but are entirely within the competitive arena here.
We're not getting past this problem of locked phones and subsidies any time soon. It is technically not yet feasible, and I see no solution short of consolidating carriers into just two - CDMA & GSM.
And that would be ugly.
Getting some carrier to run the 700MHz spectrum nationwide doesn't solve this. It just adds a third phone type to all the crazyness.
So just get used to even more abusive behavior by the usual abusive carriers. Our only hope is to stop being so addicted to our phones. You go first, ok?
ps- Google is NOT the answer.
But doesn't this sound like another protocol?
So why not just make HTTP into SPDY?
Actually, why not give me a way to prevent the offensive ad loads, especially the hidden/cloaked ads? All these do is slow down my page load and cheat the advertisers. Wait, this is a 50/50 win for me... Well, maybe, but it still makes me wait for nothing I even suspect I want.
A pox on all of them, I say.
There you go again, egging us on to use such tools with no legitimate use for actual *legal* purposes.
Somewhere, the CEOs of Comcast, Time-Warner, the RIAA, and AT&T have collectively felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if most of their objections to actual legitimate Internet use were suddenly silenced...
... if they had electronic access to my bank accounts AND credit accounts. ... if they had the keys to my house. ... if they had the keys to my car. ... if they had direct access to my computers.
or, ... if they had more interesting and desirable content to offer me. ... if they charged a somewhat more reasonable price for their current content. ... if they made it easier for me to get what I was interested in. ... if they focused on value and quality. ... if they opened distribution to more providers. ... if they focused less on prosecuting innocent people, and more on their business.
Sheesh. Epic Fail To Get It. Are we gonna have to write to the FCC and remind them how stupid this is?
And they say AI isn't ready for real-world applications yet. pfft.
Some of my family thinks I'm on another planet. Now they can call me.
I need this like I need Graffiti on my G1. Wait, that would be cool...
Maybe someone can help you with that? Whether you know it or not?
So you Comcast subscribers, your bandwidth is 70% of maximum for sustained usage.
At least you know what you're buying.
Now to hear the reports of subscribers getting throttled at only 50%, or for only a few minutes' usage.
Evil documented is still Evil.
Same as for drunk driving;
Detection - roadblocks, observation, more police.
Deterrence - fines, jail, suspension. Start the fines at $450, 48 hours jail on second offense, 3 month suspension in 3rd offense. Increment as seems proper. After 6 offenses, it looks like they would be texting from the bus, or their bicycle. The latter is where mandatory health insurance finally makes sense.
Ostracization - all the usual public campaigns. Of course ratting out drivers you are next to on the highway will come into play.
Non-technical solutions. Cheap, maybe even self-financing.
And don't think of finding a way to disable texting on my phone, you %^&holes. Do the above, and I expect there will be an app to do text-to-speech. As if there isn't one already.
Much as I love texting on the highway, I can put it down...
Apple will not be selling OS X for other hardware ever.
Not having to support every wack piece of hardware and rely on manufacturers for info, SDKs, or even to write drivers is a blessing, and lets Apple both deliver excellent, reliable products, and focus on excellence, not merely surviving each minor update.
This is Microsoft's greatest problem.