Android's been out for four or five years and hasn't generated anywhere close to comparable revenues to Apple.
Just by eating Apple's usage share, its constrained Apple's ability to generate revenue. To be disruptive, Android doesn't actually need to generate any direct revenue of its own as long as it constrains the ability of other mobile OS's to serve as revenue generators.
So Beijing and New Delhi don't come close to NYC for density.
True, but none of them are even in the top 10 most densely populated urban areas; the #1 there is, from most reports I've seen, Dhaka, Bangladesh, (by Wikipedia, which is what parent is using, 59,640/sq.mi. as of 2008 -- about twice what is cited in parent for NYC -- though other sources I've seen have current estimates at about twice that.)
To publish an insanely sensationalistic FUD piece from the Anti-Nuclear crowd scaremongering the most densely populated area of the world over something that is a complete and utter non-issue.
No place in the track of Hurricane Sandy is "the most densely populated area of the world." New York is the most spread out urban area in the world, but the only two places in the Western Hemisphere that make even the top 10 of most densely populated areas are both in Colombia, all the rest are in Asia (and, except for Hong Kong, all on the Indian subcontinent.)
Nobody has a product that lets you work and play that can be your tablet and your PC. Not at any price point
I can "really use" and "work and play" on many tablets, and have on several. As far as "a product...that can be your tablet and your PC", I have, at last count, 5 PCs (2 desktops, 2 traditional laptops, and one Atom-powered wifi-only Netbook) in my home. If I'm going to buy a tablet, I want a tablet that can be my tablet, full stop. None of them -- including Microsoft's Surface -- is going to be a close to as good at being my PC as any of the actual PCs. And the only reason for Ballmer to be making this argument is that he knows that Surface isn't as good of a tablet as the competing tablets, so he's trying to sell it as something else, and tell all of us who have used tablets that we really haven't, because they are impossible to use, and especially impossible to use for all the things we've used them for.
Which might have had some choice of convincing people when few people had direct experience with tablets, but now?
They have had for years, and yet they still haven't done it. What is so different about now?
Now, Microsoft is focussing on providing a strongly-preferred application distribution system for Windows and extracting a share of the revenues that go to application distributors (on top of what it already gets from them by charging for dev tools, and from the fact that application distributors who target Windows preferentially are what drives demand for Windows and enables Microsoft to sell it at the prices it does.)
That's a pretty big change, and it makes it much more worthwhile for firms that currently make money distributing applications to put their own efforts behind platforms where the platform vendor isn't doing that.
But somehow Windows is still the #1 gaming platform by a margin so big it isn't even a close race.
Yes, it is. That doesn't mean it will be in the future, particular if firms like Valve decide that its not where they want to focus their efforts. Being the #1 gaming platform is a result of where game developers focus their efforts, after all.
Homosexuals don't generally have a driving urge to make everyone else into homosexuals, or to run governments under homosexual principles.
Neither do religious people generally (with regard to their religion.) The minority that do, on the other hand, are quite visible, and overlap with people who are power-seeking in general (because its largely religion and power seeking in the same person that produces this behavior), and so disproportionately represented among religious people who attain power. (The same is true of heterosexuals, and I'd bet its true of homosexuals, too, its just that there are few enough of them that even most of the power-seeking ones can't even delude themselves into thinking they would have a chance of imposing conformity on that basis, and also often find it more convenient to pretend conformity to heterosexual norms in the pursuit of power.)
I was wondering which products use astatine, but alas, the Slashdot summary is a lie. They mention it, but only to say it's not used for anything.
They actually don't even say that much about it uses or not, only that it is radioactive and only available in small quantities (for a number of other elements -- e.g., promethium, and the whole group they label "Not Sold in Stores" starting with francium -- they do note the lack of significant non-research uses explicitly.)
I was under the impression that the statement had to be on the front page of the web site? I don't even see a link to it on their UK home page.
The link is titled "Apple/Samsung UK Legal Judgement" is in the footer of the homepage of their UK site, in what is (from the structure of the HTML), the section of UK-specific legal links.
As the court order requires the notice to be placed on the homepage (and is in other places quite specific in distinguishing content in the notice and hyperlinks in the notice, so it is hard to argue that the order views content and hyperlink placement as equivalent), that still isn't compliant with the order.
Right. Like, for instance, the court order here, which requires a notice with specific text, in specific font and text size to be placed on the homepages of all of Apple's EU sites. Where instead Apple has placed a link, with different text in a smaller size and different font, on the homepage of their UK site, which when traversed takes you to a separate page with the required notice plus other text.
How does it go against the wording of the court judgment when it IS the wording of the court judgment?
Because the wording of the court judgement requires specific text to be placed, in a specified font and size (14-pt Arial), on the homepages of all of Apple's EU web sites, and what is actually placed on the homepages of those sites (or, at least, what is placed on homepage of the UK site, which is the only one I checked), is different text ("Apple/Samsung UK Legal Judgement"), in 11-point Lucida Grande (well, at least, that's the first preferred font in the CSS for that text -- Arial's actually on the list after Lucida Grande, Lucida Sans Unicode, and Helvetica), which serves as a hyperlink to the page which contains the text required by the judgement as well as a bunch of other text.
Admittedly, what most of the people on Slashdot are complaining about is the other, non-required text on the page with the required notice, and not the fact that the notice isn't where it is required to be placed to start with.
Apple didn't even follow the letter of what the judge told them to do (and it was not a request, it was a court order)
That much is correct.
The judge told them to acknowledge that Samsung did not infringe.
No, the judge told them to place a specific notice (with the exact wording specified in the order, and a hyperlink to the judgement specified in a particular place), with specific text font and size. Which is the first non-title text actually on the page, and appears to use the correct font and size. So the content of the notice page is probably compliant -- nothing in the order directs them not to have other content on the page the notice is placed on. The "acknowledge that Samsung didn't infringe" is the kind of things news sites characterizing the order described it as, not what the actual order requires.
However, the order also specifies which pages the notice has to be placed on: and the specified pages are the hompages of Apple's EU sites. On their UK site, at least -- and I suspect the same is true elsewhere -- the only thing related to the notice on the homepage of the site is smaller text reading "Apple/Samsung UK Legal Judgement" in the page footer, which is a hyperlink to the page linked from TFS. The text required by the order to be placed on the homepage of Apple's EU sites is not present, either in the required font and size or otherwise.
I don't see how this note remotely complies with the judge's order.
It doesn't, but not for the reason you are arguing. The content is compliant, since the order specifies the exact text that is required to be placed, and doesn't restrict placing other text with it, and that text is there, and is the first non-heading text on the page.
The placement of the notice fails to comply with the order, however; it required that the notice be placed on the homepages of all of Apple's EU sites, in a specified typeface and size. What has actually been placed on the homepages of their EU sites is the much smaller text in the footer of the page reading "Apple/Samsung UK Legal Judgement", which is a hyperlink to the page containing the required notice and other text.
And then it says that the same thing needs to be posted in a lot of magazines. That's all that Apple was required to do, and near as I can tell, that sentence is the very first one in Apple public statement on their website
Which is not, one might note, actually on the homepage of their UK website (which is one of its EU websites), which homepage contains neither the notice required by the order to be placed "on the home pages of its EU websites", nor the link to the judgement required to be placed as part of that notice, but does contain a link which says it is to a "Samsung/Apple UK Judgement" which links instead to the page linked in TFS, which contains the notice text, link to the judgement, and then a bunch of other Apple commentary.
It seems to me that the bigger deal than them adding the additional language after the notice text is the fact that they haven't done what the order required, which is placing the notice on the homepage of their EU websites. And since the order specifically references the use of hyperlinks within the notice, it seems that the order is quite clear in distinguishing where content is placed vs. where hyperlinks to content are placed, so placing a hyperlink to a page containing the notice where they are required by the order to place the notice itself is nonresponsive.
TFA also doesn't understand that sometimes you don't care that much about MITM, just that the traffic is encrypted to make the current session opaque.
That's because that's a nonsense idea. If the scheme you use is vulnerable to MITM, the session using that scheme are not opaque to unintended eavesdroppers. That's what "MITM" means.
While it is an interesting "story", this is not science. Every man and his dog can look at marks on a rock you pick up from the street on your way to work, and tell you "the history of it", the hypothesis of how it acquired the marks, etc. It will be an interesting story, but it is not science.
Why? Because there is no way to test that hypothesis.
Incorrect. Hypotheses about behavior inspired by review of any set of fossil evidence, like the one here, will produce predictions about what can expect to be found (and, more important, about what would not be expected to be found) in other fossil evidence not in the examined set on which the hypothesis was based. This provides a route to falsification of exactly the type seen everywhere else in empirical science.
You can't directly observe the hypothesized behavior, but that's typical of scientific models -- what you can do is validate whether future observations match or conflict with what you would expect to be true if the hypothesis drawn from current observations were correct.
"...exact same UEFI secure boot..."
Not really the same at all. And many other ARM Chromebooks are using u-boot, not UEFI.
There are only 2 models of ARM Chromebook, both from Samsung, and they differ only in the presence of 3G on the more expensive one, while the less-expensive one is WiFi-only.
There are a few models of x86 Chromebooks that have been on the market (though, IIRC, only the Samsung Series 5 550 is still in production.)
This is a great idea - a lightweight, attractive, inexpensive ARM-powered notebook running GNU/Linux. But, I wonder why Samsung and others haven't bothered to "officially" offer it?
Because there's no software vendor that is both willing and able to put the money into polishing, marketing, and supporting a "GNU/Linux" style operating system the way Microsoft is doing with Windows 8/RT or Google is with Android/ChromeOS, and hardware vendors want to stick to their core competency rather than trying to software developmenet, support, and marketing organizations, so "GNU/Linux" type of operating systems, when they are available preinstalled at all, are generally niche items either from smaller vendors or targetted to specialized market and not the mass consumer market.
Though, granted, "guilt by association" strategies are, as usual, absolutely essential to your stance
I haven't used anything like a guilt by association strategy. Nazi Germany directly used churches to use religious identity to advance the interests of the State, and directly used propaganda directed at the (supposed) religious practices of other religions, particularly judaism, to build a negative identity for that group to advance the interests of the State. Religious identity was a key component (though certainly not the only one) in Nazi "us" v. "them" propaganda. That's a direct use argument, not a guilt by association one.
The moon was around at the time too. Perhaps that was a core sociopolitical factor. If you see a differentiation of your stance from the ideological influence of the moon, provide some evidence.
The evidence of the difference in the stances is that I've never made the argument that something was important just because it was around at the same time. If you have a coherent counterargument rather than just irrelevant analogies and inapplicable labels, please present it.
There is one difference between the two: religion is a choice, homosexuality is not.
They both involve orientations which have a demonstrated genetic predisposition and biological mechanism. They are also both used as labels for sets of behaviors which are choices (the propensity to make the choices are, of course, closely tied to the orientation, but also influenced by social context and other factors.)
The French Revolution had nothing to do with religion or lack thereof.
There may sometime have been a revolution in France that had nothing to do with religion or the lack thereof, but the late 18th century revolution commonly referrred to as "The French Revolution", which featured the rejection of religion, the establishment of the "Cult of Reason", with its accompanying "Festival of Reason", and radical and violent dechristianization, certainly wasn't it.
It's popular to conflate Stalin's insane need to kill people who were "out to get him" with atheism in general. Apparently he killed no atheists, had a sober mind, and his people weren't terrified of whether they would be the next ones to be dragged off to gulags. And yet, mysteriously, when the same thing happens in religious circles, it's always pinned on one or two people, not the whole religion.
Actually, its pinned not only on the whole religion, but on "religion" as a concept. By lots of people. Including, you know, Richard Dawkins. The pointing out of which was sort of a major point earlier in this subthread.
Review history. The "us" you speak of was the German State, not a particular religious affiliation.
Religious identity was one of the levers the German State used, much as did, e.g., the Iraqi State in the period between the 1991 war and the one in 2003. (Or, to a much lesser extent, the US State, particularly beginning with the Cold War, where "faith" v. "godlessness" was used as a lever to build an oppositional identity to the Soviet bloc, motivating, among other things, the official insertion of "Under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance.)
His arguments against Jews were not religious, they were based on genetic racial pseudoscience.
They were both, though its true that the propaganda portrayed the religious evil as symptomatic of effects explained by the genetic racial pseudoscience, such that the latter was more fundamental than the former.
Slashdot Mirror
Just by eating Apple's usage share, its constrained Apple's ability to generate revenue. To be disruptive, Android doesn't actually need to generate any direct revenue of its own as long as it constrains the ability of other mobile OS's to serve as revenue generators.
True, but none of them are even in the top 10 most densely populated urban areas; the #1 there is, from most reports I've seen, Dhaka, Bangladesh, (by Wikipedia, which is what parent is using, 59,640/sq.mi. as of 2008 -- about twice what is cited in parent for NYC -- though other sources I've seen have current estimates at about twice that.)
No place in the track of Hurricane Sandy is "the most densely populated area of the world." New York is the most spread out urban area in the world, but the only two places in the Western Hemisphere that make even the top 10 of most densely populated areas are both in Colombia, all the rest are in Asia (and, except for Hong Kong, all on the Indian subcontinent.)
I can "really use" and "work and play" on many tablets, and have on several. As far as "a product...that can be your tablet and your PC", I have, at last count, 5 PCs (2 desktops, 2 traditional laptops, and one Atom-powered wifi-only Netbook) in my home. If I'm going to buy a tablet, I want a tablet that can be my tablet, full stop. None of them -- including Microsoft's Surface -- is going to be a close to as good at being my PC as any of the actual PCs. And the only reason for Ballmer to be making this argument is that he knows that Surface isn't as good of a tablet as the competing tablets, so he's trying to sell it as something else, and tell all of us who have used tablets that we really haven't, because they are impossible to use, and especially impossible to use for all the things we've used them for. Which might have had some choice of convincing people when few people had direct experience with tablets, but now?
Now, Microsoft is focussing on providing a strongly-preferred application distribution system for Windows and extracting a share of the revenues that go to application distributors (on top of what it already gets from them by charging for dev tools, and from the fact that application distributors who target Windows preferentially are what drives demand for Windows and enables Microsoft to sell it at the prices it does.) That's a pretty big change, and it makes it much more worthwhile for firms that currently make money distributing applications to put their own efforts behind platforms where the platform vendor isn't doing that.
Yes, it is. That doesn't mean it will be in the future, particular if firms like Valve decide that its not where they want to focus their efforts. Being the #1 gaming platform is a result of where game developers focus their efforts, after all.
Neither do religious people generally (with regard to their religion.) The minority that do, on the other hand, are quite visible, and overlap with people who are power-seeking in general (because its largely religion and power seeking in the same person that produces this behavior), and so disproportionately represented among religious people who attain power. (The same is true of heterosexuals, and I'd bet its true of homosexuals, too, its just that there are few enough of them that even most of the power-seeking ones can't even delude themselves into thinking they would have a chance of imposing conformity on that basis, and also often find it more convenient to pretend conformity to heterosexual norms in the pursuit of power.)
They actually don't even say that much about it uses or not, only that it is radioactive and only available in small quantities (for a number of other elements -- e.g., promethium, and the whole group they label "Not Sold in Stores" starting with francium -- they do note the lack of significant non-research uses explicitly.)
The link is titled "Apple/Samsung UK Legal Judgement" is in the footer of the homepage of their UK site, in what is (from the structure of the HTML), the section of UK-specific legal links. As the court order requires the notice to be placed on the homepage (and is in other places quite specific in distinguishing content in the notice and hyperlinks in the notice, so it is hard to argue that the order views content and hyperlink placement as equivalent), that still isn't compliant with the order.
Right. Like, for instance, the court order here, which requires a notice with specific text, in specific font and text size to be placed on the homepages of all of Apple's EU sites. Where instead Apple has placed a link, with different text in a smaller size and different font, on the homepage of their UK site, which when traversed takes you to a separate page with the required notice plus other text.
Because the wording of the court judgement requires specific text to be placed, in a specified font and size (14-pt Arial), on the homepages of all of Apple's EU web sites, and what is actually placed on the homepages of those sites (or, at least, what is placed on homepage of the UK site, which is the only one I checked), is different text ("Apple/Samsung UK Legal Judgement"), in 11-point Lucida Grande (well, at least, that's the first preferred font in the CSS for that text -- Arial's actually on the list after Lucida Grande, Lucida Sans Unicode, and Helvetica), which serves as a hyperlink to the page which contains the text required by the judgement as well as a bunch of other text. Admittedly, what most of the people on Slashdot are complaining about is the other, non-required text on the page with the required notice, and not the fact that the notice isn't where it is required to be placed to start with.
That much is correct.
No, the judge told them to place a specific notice (with the exact wording specified in the order, and a hyperlink to the judgement specified in a particular place), with specific text font and size. Which is the first non-title text actually on the page, and appears to use the correct font and size. So the content of the notice page is probably compliant -- nothing in the order directs them not to have other content on the page the notice is placed on. The "acknowledge that Samsung didn't infringe" is the kind of things news sites characterizing the order described it as, not what the actual order requires.
However, the order also specifies which pages the notice has to be placed on: and the specified pages are the hompages of Apple's EU sites. On their UK site, at least -- and I suspect the same is true elsewhere -- the only thing related to the notice on the homepage of the site is smaller text reading "Apple/Samsung UK Legal Judgement" in the page footer, which is a hyperlink to the page linked from TFS. The text required by the order to be placed on the homepage of Apple's EU sites is not present, either in the required font and size or otherwise.
It doesn't, but not for the reason you are arguing. The content is compliant, since the order specifies the exact text that is required to be placed, and doesn't restrict placing other text with it, and that text is there, and is the first non-heading text on the page.
The placement of the notice fails to comply with the order, however; it required that the notice be placed on the homepages of all of Apple's EU sites, in a specified typeface and size. What has actually been placed on the homepages of their EU sites is the much smaller text in the footer of the page reading "Apple/Samsung UK Legal Judgement", which is a hyperlink to the page containing the required notice and other text.
Which is not, one might note, actually on the homepage of their UK website (which is one of its EU websites), which homepage contains neither the notice required by the order to be placed "on the home pages of its EU websites", nor the link to the judgement required to be placed as part of that notice, but does contain a link which says it is to a "Samsung/Apple UK Judgement" which links instead to the page linked in TFS, which contains the notice text, link to the judgement, and then a bunch of other Apple commentary. It seems to me that the bigger deal than them adding the additional language after the notice text is the fact that they haven't done what the order required, which is placing the notice on the homepage of their EU websites. And since the order specifically references the use of hyperlinks within the notice, it seems that the order is quite clear in distinguishing where content is placed vs. where hyperlinks to content are placed, so placing a hyperlink to a page containing the notice where they are required by the order to place the notice itself is nonresponsive.
Your second sentence is quite accurate in reference to your first.
Hitler stopped doing pretty much anything at all in the 40s.
That's because that's a nonsense idea. If the scheme you use is vulnerable to MITM, the session using that scheme are not opaque to unintended eavesdroppers. That's what "MITM" means.
Incorrect. Hypotheses about behavior inspired by review of any set of fossil evidence, like the one here, will produce predictions about what can expect to be found (and, more important, about what would not be expected to be found) in other fossil evidence not in the examined set on which the hypothesis was based. This provides a route to falsification of exactly the type seen everywhere else in empirical science.
You can't directly observe the hypothesized behavior, but that's typical of scientific models -- what you can do is validate whether future observations match or conflict with what you would expect to be true if the hypothesis drawn from current observations were correct.
There are only 2 models of ARM Chromebook, both from Samsung, and they differ only in the presence of 3G on the more expensive one, while the less-expensive one is WiFi-only. There are a few models of x86 Chromebooks that have been on the market (though, IIRC, only the Samsung Series 5 550 is still in production.)
Because there's no software vendor that is both willing and able to put the money into polishing, marketing, and supporting a "GNU/Linux" style operating system the way Microsoft is doing with Windows 8/RT or Google is with Android/ChromeOS, and hardware vendors want to stick to their core competency rather than trying to software developmenet, support, and marketing organizations, so "GNU/Linux" type of operating systems, when they are available preinstalled at all, are generally niche items either from smaller vendors or targetted to specialized market and not the mass consumer market.
So, once Chromium OS runs on the Chromebook, there's no reason for any other Linux-based OS to run on it.
I haven't used anything like a guilt by association strategy. Nazi Germany directly used churches to use religious identity to advance the interests of the State, and directly used propaganda directed at the (supposed) religious practices of other religions, particularly judaism, to build a negative identity for that group to advance the interests of the State. Religious identity was a key component (though certainly not the only one) in Nazi "us" v. "them" propaganda. That's a direct use argument, not a guilt by association one.
The evidence of the difference in the stances is that I've never made the argument that something was important just because it was around at the same time. If you have a coherent counterargument rather than just irrelevant analogies and inapplicable labels, please present it.
They both involve orientations which have a demonstrated genetic predisposition and biological mechanism. They are also both used as labels for sets of behaviors which are choices (the propensity to make the choices are, of course, closely tied to the orientation, but also influenced by social context and other factors.)
There may sometime have been a revolution in France that had nothing to do with religion or the lack thereof, but the late 18th century revolution commonly referrred to as "The French Revolution", which featured the rejection of religion, the establishment of the "Cult of Reason", with its accompanying "Festival of Reason", and radical and violent dechristianization, certainly wasn't it.
Actually, its pinned not only on the whole religion, but on "religion" as a concept. By lots of people. Including, you know, Richard Dawkins. The pointing out of which was sort of a major point earlier in this subthread.
Religious identity was one of the levers the German State used, much as did, e.g., the Iraqi State in the period between the 1991 war and the one in 2003. (Or, to a much lesser extent, the US State, particularly beginning with the Cold War, where "faith" v. "godlessness" was used as a lever to build an oppositional identity to the Soviet bloc, motivating, among other things, the official insertion of "Under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance.)
They were both, though its true that the propaganda portrayed the religious evil as symptomatic of effects explained by the genetic racial pseudoscience, such that the latter was more fundamental than the former.