...(corporate) still can't use the thing... Let me just preface this comment by saying I'm not a huge Mac fan, but I have to admit, this is one of the things I actually like about Apple. They're not stupid. They don't try to design one solution for everybody. The iPhone was never meant to be used on the corporate side... therefore, they don't support it.
wow - why so much malice? my opinion had nothing to do with the quality of their products. I really don't like their business model personally. But thats besides the point, I could make 6 figures and still have trouble keeping up with the prices of their products.
It was actually an instance of unfashionable cynicism in response to more fashionable criticism. This is Slashdot, everything is ultimately blamed on the Bush admin. I was actually making the point that they aren't really different than any other administration doing things for political reasons.
I, for one, despise Macs almost as much as I hate their fanboys. I remember the day before X-mas I went to the mall and saw people lined up to go into the Mac store, and I just wanted to walk up and let every one of them know that they were douchbags for just not going to the online store. Now that I've let you know my absolute hatred for all things Jobs. I don't really see much of an issue here. Apple is simply taking advantage of their OS to improve the functionality of their browser. I know they do this in the MS realm constantly. I wonder why the Firefox team doesn't go after them for this practice?
I love the fact that everyone plainly points the finger at Bush as the culprit. Speaking of Hitler, I believe he did this with the Jews. You find one person or subdivision of society to blame for everything. I, for one, blame the entire legislative branch for everything that has taken place over the past 8 years, and unfortunantly, they'll still be around... long after Bush. Instead of blaming the person who used the power he was alotted, maybe YOU should blame the people who gave him that power.
Agreed. The government has their hands in a lot of things it probably shouldn't. The FCC currently regulates a lot of the content that gets put out on radio or television. Not a very popular idea, but it's probably only a matter of time...
But don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that they actually do this - I'm saying it's not censorship either way. As an aside, I think it might actually make good business sense for an ISP to provide this kind of service. They would be much more efficient then any filtering package.
Actually - I'm not really sure what arguement you are trying to make, but you may have just proven the exact opposite point. Pornography IS illegal for children under 18 and 21 in some states. So - in other words, it's actually MORE like fighting smoking in children. I've never seen anyone cry censorship over that.
I wouldn't really classify this as censorship personally. I think it's a parents right to filter whatever content they want from their children. You can't really say that it's censorship if you opt-in for it. Under this line of thinking, the do not call list is censorship because you are filtering phone networks for content you don't want. In the end, however, if they were good at parenting they wouldn't really need to do this. It's just another case of children being raised by the next form of entertainment that comes their way - it used to be the tv.
True - this would be a pretty interesting in theory, but overall, I can imagine this would be much better if it were homebrewed on 360 or PS3, just because the hardware is far superior. I like the Wii, I own a Wii, but I have to admit, it isn't nearly as powerful as its competitors. Good thing It doesnt have to be:-).
Everyone uses this argument as reasoning for why Comcast *SHOULDN'T* throttle bit torrent traffic, but the large majority of bit torrent traffic is illegitimate to begin with. As someone said before, how much of a percentage of bit torrent traffic is legal? (Not that I agree with it), but this is really the crux of the matter. As long as they can fall back on the arguement that they are trying to protect copyright infringement while 95% of bt traffic is movies and music, they will probably always come out on top of these types of debates.
You're arguing with Comcast about the words they used to describe their service? Actually, when they were trying to sell their service to me, I believe they used the word, "Comcastic".
The price of the MacBook Air doesn't surprise me. Wow, someone is drinking the kool-aid. You seriously think that other companies aren't investing in the same kind of R&D? Maybe it's spread out across several vendors, but that should only make the price of IBM laptops MORE EXPENSIVE than Macs.
2^24= 16,777,216 addresses for each of those companies seems excessive. If there was a major crisis, I would wager to bet they would begin leasing out these addresses to private consumers at a premium. Regardless, I've heard so many estimates about when this is going to happen, I find it difficult to believe any of them.
I sincerely hope that Obama wins the Whitehouse, and I sincerely hope that he acts to finally put a Constitutional Ammendment guaranteeing the right to Privacy on the books. Man, you're being really sincere.
Are these records going to be freely available? One has to wonder regardlessly if employers might use it as a basis for hiring an employee. Maybe I'm paranoid, but this was really my first thought, and Its not to far from the present anyway. Employers use peoples' facebooks and myspaces as a guideline right now.
The Bible WAS NEVER meant to be interpreted literally. That is a dangerous line of thought that only leads to denial. There are pagan stories that are disturbingly similar to those in the first five books of the Bible. THIS WAS NOT A MISTAKE. In fact, it was probably by design to win over those pagans. Bottom line is believing in one thing doesn't make the other less true. I'm sick of people trying to prove the existence of God. The Bible never asks for anyone to do this, and besides, if there is some omnipotent higher power - I doubt he cares. Regardless, the Bible asks that you have faith. Faith isn't subject to scientific examination because otherwise it would sound like the ramblings of a drunken idiot. It's believing in something without a single shred of proof. Faith is an interesting concept because once you know something is true, you can't really have faith in it anymore. Personally, I think these people need to get off their soapbox because in the end it's wasting everyone's time - not to say that the legislature down in Florida actually has something better to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I think Apple users suffer through the software deficiencies to get their hardware.
...(corporate) still can't use the thing... Let me just preface this comment by saying I'm not a huge Mac fan, but I have to admit, this is one of the things I actually like about Apple. They're not stupid. They don't try to design one solution for everybody. The iPhone was never meant to be used on the corporate side... therefore, they don't support it.wow - why so much malice? my opinion had nothing to do with the quality of their products. I really don't like their business model personally. But thats besides the point, I could make 6 figures and still have trouble keeping up with the prices of their products.
It was actually an instance of unfashionable cynicism in response to more fashionable criticism. This is Slashdot, everything is ultimately blamed on the Bush admin. I was actually making the point that they aren't really different than any other administration doing things for political reasons.
I've always wanted a virtual gardener.
And this makes the Bush administration different from others how?
I, for one, despise Macs almost as much as I hate their fanboys. I remember the day before X-mas I went to the mall and saw people lined up to go into the Mac store, and I just wanted to walk up and let every one of them know that they were douchbags for just not going to the online store. Now that I've let you know my absolute hatred for all things Jobs. I don't really see much of an issue here. Apple is simply taking advantage of their OS to improve the functionality of their browser. I know they do this in the MS realm constantly. I wonder why the Firefox team doesn't go after them for this practice?
I love the fact that everyone plainly points the finger at Bush as the culprit. Speaking of Hitler, I believe he did this with the Jews. You find one person or subdivision of society to blame for everything. I, for one, blame the entire legislative branch for everything that has taken place over the past 8 years, and unfortunantly, they'll still be around... long after Bush. Instead of blaming the person who used the power he was alotted, maybe YOU should blame the people who gave him that power.
My point is - you can't apply or subscribe to be censored, it is something that is thrust upon you by a more powerful entity.
Four letters - RTFA
You're missing the point. It's not about when YOU click on the link. It's about when children click on the link.
Agreed. The government has their hands in a lot of things it probably shouldn't. The FCC currently regulates a lot of the content that gets put out on radio or television. Not a very popular idea, but it's probably only a matter of time...
But don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that they actually do this - I'm saying it's not censorship either way. As an aside, I think it might actually make good business sense for an ISP to provide this kind of service. They would be much more efficient then any filtering package.
Actually - I'm not really sure what arguement you are trying to make, but you may have just proven the exact opposite point. Pornography IS illegal for children under 18 and 21 in some states. So - in other words, it's actually MORE like fighting smoking in children. I've never seen anyone cry censorship over that.
I wouldn't really classify this as censorship personally. I think it's a parents right to filter whatever content they want from their children. You can't really say that it's censorship if you opt-in for it. Under this line of thinking, the do not call list is censorship because you are filtering phone networks for content you don't want. In the end, however, if they were good at parenting they wouldn't really need to do this. It's just another case of children being raised by the next form of entertainment that comes their way - it used to be the tv.
True - this would be a pretty interesting in theory, but overall, I can imagine this would be much better if it were homebrewed on 360 or PS3, just because the hardware is far superior. I like the Wii, I own a Wii, but I have to admit, it isn't nearly as powerful as its competitors. Good thing It doesnt have to be :-).
Everyone uses this argument as reasoning for why Comcast *SHOULDN'T* throttle bit torrent traffic, but the large majority of bit torrent traffic is illegitimate to begin with. As someone said before, how much of a percentage of bit torrent traffic is legal? (Not that I agree with it), but this is really the crux of the matter. As long as they can fall back on the arguement that they are trying to protect copyright infringement while 95% of bt traffic is movies and music, they will probably always come out on top of these types of debates.
Among the phones included clearly can't be the iPhone, otherwise the title would be, "iPhone encrpytion exploit demonstrated!!"
2^24= 16,777,216 addresses for each of those companies seems excessive. If there was a major crisis, I would wager to bet they would begin leasing out these addresses to private consumers at a premium. Regardless, I've heard so many estimates about when this is going to happen, I find it difficult to believe any of them.
Does the IANA still lease class A addresses? I thought they went to a classless system.
Are these records going to be freely available? One has to wonder regardlessly if employers might use it as a basis for hiring an employee. Maybe I'm paranoid, but this was really my first thought, and Its not to far from the present anyway. Employers use peoples' facebooks and myspaces as a guideline right now.
The Bible WAS NEVER meant to be interpreted literally. That is a dangerous line of thought that only leads to denial. There are pagan stories that are disturbingly similar to those in the first five books of the Bible. THIS WAS NOT A MISTAKE. In fact, it was probably by design to win over those pagans. Bottom line is believing in one thing doesn't make the other less true. I'm sick of people trying to prove the existence of God. The Bible never asks for anyone to do this, and besides, if there is some omnipotent higher power - I doubt he cares. Regardless, the Bible asks that you have faith. Faith isn't subject to scientific examination because otherwise it would sound like the ramblings of a drunken idiot. It's believing in something without a single shred of proof. Faith is an interesting concept because once you know something is true, you can't really have faith in it anymore. Personally, I think these people need to get off their soapbox because in the end it's wasting everyone's time - not to say that the legislature down in Florida actually has something better to do.