Or how about this. There's a lot of hype about giving every child a laptop, poor children who Microsoft showed no interest in before. The catch: this laptop runs on open source software, not Windows. All of a sudden Microsoft shows an interest and takes the air out of the balloon of the other project by competing directly with them. The other project puts its tail between its legs and strikes a deal with Microsoft to beef up the computers so they can run Windows.
Or how about this. There's some great, classic lectures by a famous physicist. Bill Gates buys the rights to these lectures, but instead of putting them online in a platform neutral format, he uses them to peddle his company's latest proprietary format in a bid to retake control of the Web.
Now here's Billy saying tablets suck for education, and PCs are the way. I happen to be fond of the keyboard myself, but excuse me if I'm a bit skeptical of why he's making the argument he is.
What's really funny is that he says getting devices into schools has a horrible track record -- yet he got into computers because there was one in his high school and he took to it like a duck to water.
It would be hard for a teacher to find a useful application that's available on "open" Android, but not on "closed" iPad.
How about a compiler that lets kids write their own software? Oh, that's right, you have to be a "geek" to write software. The little lemmings shouldn't be exposed or given the opportunity as part of their education. It's not like we're an information age economy or anything.
If the people can't be bothered to vote for their collected self-interest, then they deserve the government they get. Your way means every political group out there would feel justified in murdering a politician every time the vote doesn't go there way, even for issues that you would endorse.
Alternatively, if you want the politicians to not murder you for speaking out, you should show the same restraint. If you want rule by might makes right, go live in Somalia or any place with tribal rule.
Public accommodations (i.e., private entities that own, operate, lease, or lease to places of public accommodation),
Commercial facilities, and
Private entities that offer certain examinations and courses related to educational and occupational certification.
Places of public accommodation include over five million private establishments, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, convention centers, retail stores, shopping centers, dry cleaners, laundromats, pharmacies, doctors' offices, hospitals, museums, libraries, parks, zoos, amusement parks, private schools, day care centers, health spas, and bowling alleys.
Commercial facilities are nonresidential facilities, including office buildings, factories, and warehouses, whose operations affect commerce."
This is why the end result of this will be the case being appealed into oblivion or thrown out.
I wish you were right, as I really hate this "discrimination" crap when you aren't making special accommodations. However, I assume the opposite will happen, and Netflix will be forced to pay for this because they have deep pockets.
Here's the deal, the product didn't fail due to a design error.
And you know this how? Because Steve Jobs said so?
So you were in my mind at the time of the presentation?
I gave you an example where somebody thought it might have been a problem with the phone, yet you act like it's some absurd situation that you can't even imagine.
Jobs asked everyone to stop using wifi, and it worked. Logically, that was the issue.
First off, he had to ask more than once, and then they had Apple people going around the room and telling people to turn off their devices. Second, you're completely ignoring what I said, and also what somebody else said, that it might fail in a stressed environment due to a design error.
In fact, I have a netbook where the WiFi normally works, but the laptop would reliably freeze in this one spot when I checked for access points. If instead of freezing, it could have just failed to connect due to a bug, and I wouldn't known any different. In the comments of the blog that I linked to, several people mentioned how one device they had worked fine for WiFi, and another not, on the same spot. Your assumption that it must be an external issue is unjustified.
Here's another example that actually pertains to the iPhone. "You're holding it wrong." If you've got a strong signal, the phone can connect anyways. Yet due to a design error that valued aesthetics over functionality, the phone can't connect if the signal is weak, whereas it would if you weren't "holding it wrong".
It is a third-generation language with no features taken from the first, second, fourth or fifth generations.
You're way overstating the case for C as some theoretically pure language. It's been tagged as a "high level assembler" for a reason, in that the underlying machine bleeds through (the second generation) much more than in other "third generation" languages.
C is just a language that happened to take off. It isn't pure in any sense of the word. It's got half-assed "modules" based on crude file inclusion. Its mix of pointers, arrays, and integer types is baroque. It's got the beginnings of inheritance with its unions. It's structural but supports goto and setjmp/longjmp. This list is by no means exhaustive.
It's also extremely dubious to say that object-oriented doesn't belong in the third generation of languages. Simula 67 was the first -- that's 1967, predating C. Also, Cobol, Lisp, and Fortran were third generation languages, all with distinct forms.
That's much better. However, when you're obviously copying and pasting it's good form to provide a link to the source.
Anyways, I did some checking against some of these quotes and they look legit and support the view that "the militia" were ordinary people, and that ordinary people should have the right to carry arms.
That's not what I was talking about from the beginning which was quite clear. You are trying spin it when caught that what you were saying doesn't make sense.
You were talking about a live demo from the beginning, and said it was "no big deal". That is what I keyed in on.
What? The iPhone is not a router. It was not doing anything with "untested volume.". Jobs tried to surf with it. It was not receiving any data. I have no idea what you are imagining.
What any consumer might imagine and the kind of thing that happens all the time: when faced with a stressed environment, the product failed due to a design error. I call you a fanboy because the idea that the product might have been at fault doesn't even enter your mind, whereas the typical consumer sees that Jobs expects everybody to turn off their WiFi for the damn thing to work.
I don't remember any journalists immediately blogging "OMGZ. iPhone wifi doesn't work!". At best, they joked about it the glitch.
You're right, in that most just accepted it was an understandable WiFi congestion, but there was at least one person who was uncertain and hinted at a problem with the phone:
"It wasn't clear exactly what the actual Wi-Fi issue was, but it seemed that his demo iPhone may have had trouble staying connected to the Wi-Fi network it was supposed to be attached to given there were so many other options around. (If anyone can better diagnose the problem let me know.)"
Please explain how this is fault of the product (which is your contention) and not the set up?
I'm talking about perception and keyed in on your "no big deal". It's a demo, and it obviously is a big deal. My assumption going in was that the problem was with a new product that couldn't handle an untested volume. You say it was the local access point. OK, if that's true, then that is (mostly) relieving, but first impressions are extremely important.
As to your examples, it's pretty obvious when the power or mic goes out that you're not going to blame the product. In this case, you're such a fanboy you can't even consider my point of view.
Providing a link is a starting point for your claims. Without that, it's just as easy to assume you're talking out your ass and not worth spending the time to investigate. In fact, somebody followed up for you, and basing my research on that, your claims are overblown.
Which shows the value of your comment. If it's too much work for the person making the claim, then it's too much work for the average reader, and being a skeptic they should NOT take your statement at face value.
The next demonstration, Apple set up a network just for their devices so it wouldn't happen.
Which is what they should have done in the first place, then. It's a demo, where perception is everything. Having to tell everybody to turn off their WiFi is a PR disaster akin to a device freeze.
Nope, but I'll admit I haven't done a lot of traveling with WiFi. That said, I expect, for example, my cell phone to work at busy places, which it has.
Oh please, it's another apologist for closed-source exceptions. Imagine that, people dedicated to open source want source instead of being required to distribute binary blobs.
no one is obliged to add more circuits to a computer just because you can't be bothered to give the embedded card some data.
Nobody is asking such. Just release the source instead of a binary blob. If it truly is data without corresponding source, then there is no problem. Of course, you know there's source there.
Have you even looked at the firmware in question? It really does things as "implement fencing point support" low level crap, and it is damn SMALL.
Code is code, and even code that compiles down to a few kB at some point often requires a patch. It's quite common for new versions of firmware to be released that fix problems.
Yeah, it would be nice if it were open, but it doesn't matter very much if it is given a license that doesn't cause it to end up in Debian's non-free repo except for the lack of source
No source means it goes into non-free. There's no license that will change that. From the Debian Free Software Guidelines: "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."
The owe our tiny market segment exactly nothing, but they're asking anyway.
Regarding Linux on the desktop, it's in their self-interest to make a token effort (good will among influential geeks, and a hedge in case the Linux desktop ever takes off), but since Linux is one of the core pieces of Android, it goes way beyond that now.
Slashdot Mirror
oxygen displacement is probably one of the most painless ways to die.
I always thought it was silly that it's so hard to execute somebody these days. I did a quick search and found this:
http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2011/02/reconsidering-the-gas-chamber.html
Or how about this. There's a lot of hype about giving every child a laptop, poor children who Microsoft showed no interest in before. The catch: this laptop runs on open source software, not Windows. All of a sudden Microsoft shows an interest and takes the air out of the balloon of the other project by competing directly with them. The other project puts its tail between its legs and strikes a deal with Microsoft to beef up the computers so they can run Windows.
Or how about this. There's some great, classic lectures by a famous physicist. Bill Gates buys the rights to these lectures, but instead of putting them online in a platform neutral format, he uses them to peddle his company's latest proprietary format in a bid to retake control of the Web.
Now here's Billy saying tablets suck for education, and PCs are the way. I happen to be fond of the keyboard myself, but excuse me if I'm a bit skeptical of why he's making the argument he is.
What's really funny is that he says getting devices into schools has a horrible track record -- yet he got into computers because there was one in his high school and he took to it like a duck to water.
It would be hard for a teacher to find a useful application that's available on "open" Android, but not on "closed" iPad.
How about a compiler that lets kids write their own software? Oh, that's right, you have to be a "geek" to write software. The little lemmings shouldn't be exposed or given the opportunity as part of their education. It's not like we're an information age economy or anything.
If the people can't be bothered to vote for their collected self-interest, then they deserve the government they get. Your way means every political group out there would feel justified in murdering a politician every time the vote doesn't go there way, even for issues that you would endorse.
Alternatively, if you want the politicians to not murder you for speaking out, you should show the same restraint. If you want rule by might makes right, go live in Somalia or any place with tribal rule.
Bullshit. By your logic, people with disabilities could demand anything they want by virtue of being disabled. That's not how a free society works.
You'd have a point if the ADA only applied to corporations:
http://www.ada.gov/t3hilght.htm
"Who is Covered by Title III of the ADA
The title III regulation covers --
Public accommodations (i.e., private entities that own, operate, lease, or lease to places of public accommodation),
Commercial facilities, and
Private entities that offer certain examinations and courses related to educational and occupational certification.
Places of public accommodation include over five million private establishments, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, convention centers, retail stores, shopping centers, dry cleaners, laundromats, pharmacies, doctors' offices, hospitals, museums, libraries, parks, zoos, amusement parks, private schools, day care centers, health spas, and bowling alleys.
Commercial facilities are nonresidential facilities, including office buildings, factories, and warehouses, whose operations affect commerce."
And can these special rights you mentioned be owned, transferred, and sold like regular property?
No, it shouldn't.
We have decided as a society that simply having no accessibility is unacceptable.
As a society, we can always decide differently. It's not like there aren't choices for disabled people without legal mandates, just less of them.
Becasue we as a society have determined that private enterprise can only exist at our discretion.
"Land of the free" and the right to "pursue happiness", *snort*.
This is why the end result of this will be the case being appealed into oblivion or thrown out.
I wish you were right, as I really hate this "discrimination" crap when you aren't making special accommodations. However, I assume the opposite will happen, and Netflix will be forced to pay for this because they have deep pockets.
Here's the deal, the product didn't fail due to a design error.
And you know this how? Because Steve Jobs said so?
So you were in my mind at the time of the presentation?
I gave you an example where somebody thought it might have been a problem with the phone, yet you act like it's some absurd situation that you can't even imagine.
Jobs asked everyone to stop using wifi, and it worked. Logically, that was the issue.
First off, he had to ask more than once, and then they had Apple people going around the room and telling people to turn off their devices. Second, you're completely ignoring what I said, and also what somebody else said, that it might fail in a stressed environment due to a design error.
In fact, I have a netbook where the WiFi normally works, but the laptop would reliably freeze in this one spot when I checked for access points. If instead of freezing, it could have just failed to connect due to a bug, and I wouldn't known any different. In the comments of the blog that I linked to, several people mentioned how one device they had worked fine for WiFi, and another not, on the same spot. Your assumption that it must be an external issue is unjustified.
Here's another example that actually pertains to the iPhone. "You're holding it wrong." If you've got a strong signal, the phone can connect anyways. Yet due to a design error that valued aesthetics over functionality, the phone can't connect if the signal is weak, whereas it would if you weren't "holding it wrong".
It is a third-generation language with no features taken from the first, second, fourth or fifth generations.
You're way overstating the case for C as some theoretically pure language. It's been tagged as a "high level assembler" for a reason, in that the underlying machine bleeds through (the second generation) much more than in other "third generation" languages.
C is just a language that happened to take off. It isn't pure in any sense of the word. It's got half-assed "modules" based on crude file inclusion. Its mix of pointers, arrays, and integer types is baroque. It's got the beginnings of inheritance with its unions. It's structural but supports goto and setjmp/longjmp. This list is by no means exhaustive.
It's also extremely dubious to say that object-oriented doesn't belong in the third generation of languages. Simula 67 was the first -- that's 1967, predating C. Also, Cobol, Lisp, and Fortran were third generation languages, all with distinct forms.
That's much better. However, when you're obviously copying and pasting it's good form to provide a link to the source.
Anyways, I did some checking against some of these quotes and they look legit and support the view that "the militia" were ordinary people, and that ordinary people should have the right to carry arms.
That's not what I was talking about from the beginning which was quite clear. You are trying spin it when caught that what you were saying doesn't make sense.
You were talking about a live demo from the beginning, and said it was "no big deal". That is what I keyed in on.
What? The iPhone is not a router. It was not doing anything with "untested volume.". Jobs tried to surf with it. It was not receiving any data. I have no idea what you are imagining.
What any consumer might imagine and the kind of thing that happens all the time: when faced with a stressed environment, the product failed due to a design error. I call you a fanboy because the idea that the product might have been at fault doesn't even enter your mind, whereas the typical consumer sees that Jobs expects everybody to turn off their WiFi for the damn thing to work.
I don't remember any journalists immediately blogging "OMGZ. iPhone wifi doesn't work!". At best, they joked about it the glitch.
"awkward", "embarrassing and rare", "a bit sad"
You're right, in that most just accepted it was an understandable WiFi congestion, but there was at least one person who was uncertain and hinted at a problem with the phone:
"It wasn't clear exactly what the actual Wi-Fi issue was, but it seemed that his demo iPhone may have had trouble staying connected to the Wi-Fi network it was supposed to be attached to given there were so many other options around. (If anyone can better diagnose the problem let me know.)"
Please explain how this is fault of the product (which is your contention) and not the set up?
I'm talking about perception and keyed in on your "no big deal". It's a demo, and it obviously is a big deal. My assumption going in was that the problem was with a new product that couldn't handle an untested volume. You say it was the local access point. OK, if that's true, then that is (mostly) relieving, but first impressions are extremely important.
As to your examples, it's pretty obvious when the power or mic goes out that you're not going to blame the product. In this case, you're such a fanboy you can't even consider my point of view.
Providing a link is a starting point for your claims. Without that, it's just as easy to assume you're talking out your ass and not worth spending the time to investigate. In fact, somebody followed up for you, and basing my research on that, your claims are overblown.
Thanks. While it is a positive point for individual gun rights, it seems that there isn't much to go on if this is all that can be mustered for a particular interpretation by the founding fathers. I found this article critiquing this source: "The Second Amendment Under Fire: The Uses of History and the Politics of Gun Control"
Which shows the value of your comment. If it's too much work for the person making the claim, then it's too much work for the average reader, and being a skeptic they should NOT take your statement at face value.
The next demonstration, Apple set up a network just for their devices so it wouldn't happen.
Which is what they should have done in the first place, then. It's a demo, where perception is everything. Having to tell everybody to turn off their WiFi is a PR disaster akin to a device freeze.
Nope, but I'll admit I haven't done a lot of traveling with WiFi. That said, I expect, for example, my cell phone to work at busy places, which it has.
Oh please, it's firmware whining again
Oh please, it's another apologist for closed-source exceptions. Imagine that, people dedicated to open source want source instead of being required to distribute binary blobs.
no one is obliged to add more circuits to a computer just because you can't be bothered to give the embedded card some data.
Nobody is asking such. Just release the source instead of a binary blob. If it truly is data without corresponding source, then there is no problem. Of course, you know there's source there.
Have you even looked at the firmware in question? It really does things as "implement fencing point support" low level crap, and it is damn SMALL.
Code is code, and even code that compiles down to a few kB at some point often requires a patch. It's quite common for new versions of firmware to be released that fix problems.
Yeah, it would be nice if it were open, but it doesn't matter very much if it is given a license that doesn't cause it to end up in Debian's non-free repo except for the lack of source
No source means it goes into non-free. There's no license that will change that. From the Debian Free Software Guidelines: "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."
The owe our tiny market segment exactly nothing, but they're asking anyway.
Regarding Linux on the desktop, it's in their self-interest to make a token effort (good will among influential geeks, and a hedge in case the Linux desktop ever takes off), but since Linux is one of the core pieces of Android, it goes way beyond that now.
A gun owner stores his firearms properly (ammunition separate from the firearm)
That doesn't seem very helpful if somebody has broken into your house and you need to have your weapon ready for use as fast as possible. It just so happens that kind of story was in the news today: http://news.yahoo.com/14-old-phoenix-boy-shoots-armed-intruder-181216213.html