Agreed... an Ubuntu phone will not succeed. There will be very few apps for it... even if this convergence works (and I use Ubuntu as my desktop), it needs to function as a smart phone, which means it can't just be useful when docked as a desktop. I just don't see developers rushing to develop for it. It will only serve to be a proof of concept. At the same time, I surely don't want an MS based phone, but at least they have some app market share.
This move strikes me as being more like
Jack of All trades, master on None.
Yes... exactly, just like the smartphone itself (Consumer Reports, for example, rates NONE of the current smart phones as have very good or excellent voice quality). People want this. Most people don't need high powered 3D gaming platforms, number crunching, or to be able to recompile a kernel, or do anything but the most simple video and photo editing. My current phone is so slow, I wouldn't possibly want it to act as my desktop - but in the future, new hardware, full desktop use (keyboard and mouse on a large screen), then it would make no difference.
I think that's very shortsighted. If you get what you want in a phone... all the things you want, that great, small, portable device that can do so much for you while your away from your desk... AND not have to buy a desktop or laptop, because when you dock it to something like a large screen, all the features of those applications you'd have on a desktop become available, then who wouldn't want that? I think the vast majority of users would love that - developers and games, not so much, but the rest of the world that just surfs, emails, youtubes, and does simple office apps... yes, I think they'd want that. Surely, as a parent, I'd love to be able to get my kids one thing to go to college instead of two or three.
Maybe not phones, but tablets are already doing this, and I don't think phones are that far behind. I think it'll be less than 10 years. I'm actually looking right now to replace my "portable workstation" with a dockable tablet. Some of my programming includes GUIs, so remote development hasn't really been all that feasible. If the phone can dock to something with large screen, keyboard, and mouse, and if it's still works great as a smartphone, then why not?
It's not people making generalizations, it's scientific evidence; years of study show that people under the age of 25 largely do not fully grasp the consequences of their actions. Congratulations on being a statistical outlier... it doesn't change the point made.
No, just your average person... the description of the crime fits that narrative. Perhaps you were a genius who understood there were consequences to your actions - science has shown us that's not typical of the under-25 crowd.
So... congratulations on taking the comment completely the wrong way.
he did not lose his freedom of speech at all; freedom of speech != freedom from any and all ramifications.
So in your version of the USA, people can say whatever they like, and consequently be (fired | publicly shamed | arrested | executed) and you consider that freedom of speech?
I'd hate to think what you consider to be a LACK of freedom of speech! Cutting-out of tongue at birth?
No, that's not what I said, but thanks for trying. Arrested and executed are functions of government, the government cannot limit your freedom of speech. Getting fired from a private corporation (which is not even what happened, but I'll play along) is not a violation of free speech.
I'm only saying that the complaint is about hypocrisy; the public outcry against someone "defending traditional marriage" dwarfs the public outcry against someone supporting same sex marriage (despite popular support in the U.S. being roughly equal), when the fact of the matter is people should just shrug and move on. For the record, I'm not arguing on this guy's behalf because I'm against same sex marriage - I'm not, I really don't care (and as such you could put me in the "supports" category), I just agree with the opinion that the public outcry is hypocritical.
I agree... he did not lose his freedom of speech at all; freedom of speech != freedom from any and all ramifications. However, I think the point Anonymous Coward was making is that if it were reversed, and someone lost their job for supporting same sex marriage, you'd never hear the end of it.
and, and, and... and the cell companies have to build in rural areas, the cost of which gets subsidized by customers in more densely populated areas. One reason the U.S. will never have the fastest/best/cheapest internet or cell phone service (on average).
The biggest problem with banning anything, especially weapons, is that only the people who feel morally obligated to follow the ban will do so - leaving them unprotected from those who don't.
No. There's plenty of space to learn - and now there's recourse for abusing the freedom they've been given. The car doesn't shut off, the parents are required to remove driving privileges... if my kids want to drive my car, there are rules. I already told my son (months away from getting his license) that I will never buy him a car - I will by myself a car and let him use it as long as he's obeying the rules. He didn't complain... I don't owe him a car. It's a privilege. If he doesn't want to be monitored, he can pay for his own car and his own insurance... it's just that simple.
The context of my statement was presidential elections. Ideally, the president should matter very little. Unfortunately, after 240 years, the U.S. Constitution is essentially turned on it's head. In times of peace, the majority of governing is supposed to happen locally. If that still happened, we'd have much greater control over our local politics.
The other bad part about that is that by the time the primaries get to my state, the ones I liked have already been eliminated by the party establishment. I can vote in either primary (but not both) because we don't do party registration in my state, but by the time the primaries come around, anyone that would have made a significant difference is already eliminated.
Only nobody sold Obama as a constitutionalist... in fact, for liberals, "constitutionalist" is one of their many examples of "code words" for "racist." He was sold as a constitutional scholar... so he knows about it, he knows what it says, he just doesn't care.
The problem is that everybody seems to defend the politicians on their side, no matter how immoral or corrupt they've proven themselves to be. Confirmation bias, I suppose.... it's always worse when the other person does it.
It also rings true that we have lowered the bar of expectation with regard to decency and morality from our politicians.
That!
I've had a number of arguments against certain candidates because they quite obviously lied... and partisan apologists for that candidate would say "yeah, but all politicians lie!" This has happened, of course, for politicians from every party... but it shows that far too many of us not only accept it, but condone it. "It's OK because it's the one I support... but if your candidate lies I'll never stop mentioning it!"
I remember when Bill lied to a grand jury, and there were far too many people who said "yeah, but who wouldn't in that situation?" I wouldn't... I wouldn't have been in that situation, either. Which leads us to the fact that it's not just politicians, it's a large (and growing) segment of our society that believes that lying and deceitful behavior, immorality and selfishness are OK.
There is no sense or morality or common decency anymore. Sure, most kids lie about their bad behavior, but it used to be that parents would punish them even worse for lying about it. Nowadays so many people don't want to punish their kids - they want to be "friends," that kids get away with anything by lying about it... and those kids grow up, and breed more kids just the same; they grow up to be politicians, businessmen, police officers, and all manner of people that we are supposed to be able to trust. I even had an argument with someone boasting about screwing up someone else... their defense was "there's no law against it." I had to ask "since when to common decency and common sense need to be written into law?"
I think this is what people don't get.... it may be true that that links to certain services were weak points, but what Comcast wanted to do was charge the content providers for those links, despite the fact it was already their own customers that wanted (and WERE PAYING FOR) the bandwidth. The larger problem is that I am a Comcast customer, and also a Netflix customer. I pay Comcast a lot of money every month for service - nearly $100 when you include everything (yes, including modem rental), and what I want to use that service for is (sometimes) to stream Netflix. Comcast should want me to be a happy customer with how much I'm paying. They obviously don't give a crap... but since there's no reasonable competition in my area, I (you know, the actual Comcast customer) am screwed. Netflix is not "pushing" their content, I, the customer, am pulling it over the bandwidth I've already paid for.
Every industry with competition is driven towards serving the customer. Period. The problem here is not throttling, it's ultimately a lack of competition and collusion between ISPs. I'm not a big fan of regulations - if you actually have a free, competitive market, you don't need regulations, but companies take advantage and participate in anti-competitive behavior otherwise. The regulations shouldn't restrict the services of the company, they should be to keep the free market free, even if that means that, in the short term, people get their netflix throttled.... long term goals are much more important.
I agree and disagree... I'm one of the people "stuck" with comcast, paying nearly $100/month when you include all the fees and stuff (because I'm not bundling TV or phone service). My only other choice is wireless (Clear, which is not fast enough) or AT&T... which is also many times slower than Comcast. There are other cable companies around, but they seem to have sliced and diced up the areas they serve... when I put my address in with the other cable company, they actually say "good news! you can get service with comcast!"
However, more competition - and not a "coordinated ISP system" would be better. Although it's quite obvious, it's probably also quite difficult to prove these companies are colluding to divde the market in an effort to artificially inflate prices. I don't know what the solution is, but I rarely accept "more government" as an answer.
So what if we're near the bottom when it comes to internet service... I can't think of anything people need or want to do and can't because of any limitations. We're also near the bottom due (in large part) to geography. Net neutrality isn't going to fix that.
I certainly don't like most of your list, but all of them "kooks?" The choice of Sarah Pailin made my choice to vote third party pretty easy, but if you think they are all kooks then there is no one the republicans can pick that you will not call a "kook." You're simply being a blinded partisan.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed... an Ubuntu phone will not succeed. There will be very few apps for it... even if this convergence works (and I use Ubuntu as my desktop), it needs to function as a smart phone, which means it can't just be useful when docked as a desktop. I just don't see developers rushing to develop for it. It will only serve to be a proof of concept. At the same time, I surely don't want an MS based phone, but at least they have some app market share.
Because if you think they're describing the same OS on multiple platforms, you've completely missed the point.
This move strikes me as being more like Jack of All trades, master on None.
Yes... exactly, just like the smartphone itself (Consumer Reports, for example, rates NONE of the current smart phones as have very good or excellent voice quality). People want this. Most people don't need high powered 3D gaming platforms, number crunching, or to be able to recompile a kernel, or do anything but the most simple video and photo editing. My current phone is so slow, I wouldn't possibly want it to act as my desktop - but in the future, new hardware, full desktop use (keyboard and mouse on a large screen), then it would make no difference.
I think that's very shortsighted. If you get what you want in a phone... all the things you want, that great, small, portable device that can do so much for you while your away from your desk... AND not have to buy a desktop or laptop, because when you dock it to something like a large screen, all the features of those applications you'd have on a desktop become available, then who wouldn't want that? I think the vast majority of users would love that - developers and games, not so much, but the rest of the world that just surfs, emails, youtubes, and does simple office apps... yes, I think they'd want that. Surely, as a parent, I'd love to be able to get my kids one thing to go to college instead of two or three.
Maybe not phones, but tablets are already doing this, and I don't think phones are that far behind. I think it'll be less than 10 years. I'm actually looking right now to replace my "portable workstation" with a dockable tablet. Some of my programming includes GUIs, so remote development hasn't really been all that feasible. If the phone can dock to something with large screen, keyboard, and mouse, and if it's still works great as a smartphone, then why not?
It's not people making generalizations, it's scientific evidence; years of study show that people under the age of 25 largely do not fully grasp the consequences of their actions. Congratulations on being a statistical outlier... it doesn't change the point made.
So everyone under 25 is a brain dead moron?.
No, just your average person... the description of the crime fits that narrative. Perhaps you were a genius who understood there were consequences to your actions - science has shown us that's not typical of the under-25 crowd.
So... congratulations on taking the comment completely the wrong way.
So in your version of the USA, people can say whatever they like, and consequently be (fired | publicly shamed | arrested | executed) and you consider that freedom of speech?
I'd hate to think what you consider to be a LACK of freedom of speech! Cutting-out of tongue at birth?
No, that's not what I said, but thanks for trying. Arrested and executed are functions of government, the government cannot limit your freedom of speech. Getting fired from a private corporation (which is not even what happened, but I'll play along) is not a violation of free speech.
I'm only saying that the complaint is about hypocrisy; the public outcry against someone "defending traditional marriage" dwarfs the public outcry against someone supporting same sex marriage (despite popular support in the U.S. being roughly equal), when the fact of the matter is people should just shrug and move on. For the record, I'm not arguing on this guy's behalf because I'm against same sex marriage - I'm not, I really don't care (and as such you could put me in the "supports" category), I just agree with the opinion that the public outcry is hypocritical.
I agree... he did not lose his freedom of speech at all; freedom of speech != freedom from any and all ramifications. However, I think the point Anonymous Coward was making is that if it were reversed, and someone lost their job for supporting same sex marriage, you'd never hear the end of it.
and, and, and... and the cell companies have to build in rural areas, the cost of which gets subsidized by customers in more densely populated areas. One reason the U.S. will never have the fastest/best/cheapest internet or cell phone service (on average).
You use Ubuntu on servers?
We do. So what? Ubuntu has a server distribution... it works great, is easy to maintain, and we use it for internal (behind firewall) use. And?
The biggest problem with banning anything, especially weapons, is that only the people who feel morally obligated to follow the ban will do so - leaving them unprotected from those who don't.
The only way to learn to drive is to drive.
I agree - and this technology will give more parents the peace of mind to hand over the keys to their kids. I only see good coming from this.
No. There's plenty of space to learn - and now there's recourse for abusing the freedom they've been given. The car doesn't shut off, the parents are required to remove driving privileges... if my kids want to drive my car, there are rules. I already told my son (months away from getting his license) that I will never buy him a car - I will by myself a car and let him use it as long as he's obeying the rules. He didn't complain... I don't owe him a car. It's a privilege. If he doesn't want to be monitored, he can pay for his own car and his own insurance... it's just that simple.
The context of my statement was presidential elections. Ideally, the president should matter very little. Unfortunately, after 240 years, the U.S. Constitution is essentially turned on it's head. In times of peace, the majority of governing is supposed to happen locally. If that still happened, we'd have much greater control over our local politics.
The other bad part about that is that by the time the primaries get to my state, the ones I liked have already been eliminated by the party establishment. I can vote in either primary (but not both) because we don't do party registration in my state, but by the time the primaries come around, anyone that would have made a significant difference is already eliminated.
Only nobody sold Obama as a constitutionalist... in fact, for liberals, "constitutionalist" is one of their many examples of "code words" for "racist." He was sold as a constitutional scholar... so he knows about it, he knows what it says, he just doesn't care.
Lying politicians are not a recent phenomenon. People have always been dishonest, but for some reason the "kids these days" argument remains popular.
So it's acceptable, then, because they've always done it. Gotcha.
The problem is that everybody seems to defend the politicians on their side, no matter how immoral or corrupt they've proven themselves to be. Confirmation bias, I suppose.... it's always worse when the other person does it.
It also rings true that we have lowered the bar of expectation with regard to decency and morality from our politicians.
That!
I've had a number of arguments against certain candidates because they quite obviously lied... and partisan apologists for that candidate would say "yeah, but all politicians lie!" This has happened, of course, for politicians from every party... but it shows that far too many of us not only accept it, but condone it. "It's OK because it's the one I support... but if your candidate lies I'll never stop mentioning it!"
I remember when Bill lied to a grand jury, and there were far too many people who said "yeah, but who wouldn't in that situation?" I wouldn't... I wouldn't have been in that situation, either. Which leads us to the fact that it's not just politicians, it's a large (and growing) segment of our society that believes that lying and deceitful behavior, immorality and selfishness are OK.
There is no sense or morality or common decency anymore. Sure, most kids lie about their bad behavior, but it used to be that parents would punish them even worse for lying about it. Nowadays so many people don't want to punish their kids - they want to be "friends," that kids get away with anything by lying about it... and those kids grow up, and breed more kids just the same; they grow up to be politicians, businessmen, police officers, and all manner of people that we are supposed to be able to trust. I even had an argument with someone boasting about screwing up someone else... their defense was "there's no law against it." I had to ask "since when to common decency and common sense need to be written into law?"
I think this is what people don't get.... it may be true that that links to certain services were weak points, but what Comcast wanted to do was charge the content providers for those links, despite the fact it was already their own customers that wanted (and WERE PAYING FOR) the bandwidth. The larger problem is that I am a Comcast customer, and also a Netflix customer. I pay Comcast a lot of money every month for service - nearly $100 when you include everything (yes, including modem rental), and what I want to use that service for is (sometimes) to stream Netflix. Comcast should want me to be a happy customer with how much I'm paying. They obviously don't give a crap... but since there's no reasonable competition in my area, I (you know, the actual Comcast customer) am screwed. Netflix is not "pushing" their content, I, the customer, am pulling it over the bandwidth I've already paid for.
Every industry with competition is driven towards serving the customer. Period. The problem here is not throttling, it's ultimately a lack of competition and collusion between ISPs. I'm not a big fan of regulations - if you actually have a free, competitive market, you don't need regulations, but companies take advantage and participate in anti-competitive behavior otherwise. The regulations shouldn't restrict the services of the company, they should be to keep the free market free, even if that means that, in the short term, people get their netflix throttled.... long term goals are much more important.
I agree and disagree... I'm one of the people "stuck" with comcast, paying nearly $100/month when you include all the fees and stuff (because I'm not bundling TV or phone service). My only other choice is wireless (Clear, which is not fast enough) or AT&T... which is also many times slower than Comcast. There are other cable companies around, but they seem to have sliced and diced up the areas they serve... when I put my address in with the other cable company, they actually say "good news! you can get service with comcast!"
However, more competition - and not a "coordinated ISP system" would be better. Although it's quite obvious, it's probably also quite difficult to prove these companies are colluding to divde the market in an effort to artificially inflate prices. I don't know what the solution is, but I rarely accept "more government" as an answer.
So what if we're near the bottom when it comes to internet service... I can't think of anything people need or want to do and can't because of any limitations. We're also near the bottom due (in large part) to geography. Net neutrality isn't going to fix that.
I certainly don't like most of your list, but all of them "kooks?" The choice of Sarah Pailin made my choice to vote third party pretty easy, but if you think they are all kooks then there is no one the republicans can pick that you will not call a "kook." You're simply being a blinded partisan.