Posting to undo moderation error.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Except they didn't. In what way did Samsung make a better tablet than the iPad?
Samsung was not interested in making a better iPad or iPhone. They were interested in riding the wave of Apple's success, and hoping to score some cheap marketing by making their products nearly identical to Apple's.
There's absolutely no evidence (or reason to at all) to believe the rhetoric that Apple has always valiantly been interested in making better products whereas Samsung is some sort of degenerate company both incapable and unwilling to produce a better product that customers might want to buy.
This statement can only be believed if you already have these prejudices. Why wouldn't Samsung want to produce a better product to capture market share in a rapidly growing market segment? On top of that there is plenty of evidence that Samsung is producing phones and tablets that have received extremely favourable reception, in some cases being touted as being better than the equivalent Apple product.
Name a single real invention by any company ever. You can't do it because you know that there is no invention which could withstand the reductive scrutiny you heap on Apple's inventions.
Comments like this make me wish mods could go higher than 5. Bravo sir.
Sounds pretty dumb if no-one had actually noticed that a getaway had ever taken place.
Here's a hypothetical
1) Man collects child porn, or just browses occasionally
2) Wife finds out
3) Man denies all knowledge - "it just appeared there, someone must have broken into my computer"
4) Wife doesn't believe him
5) Man reports it to the police to prove how serious he is
6) Police and social workers see right through it, but lack concrete evidence
7) We get to this situation
I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's a theory that fits the (very few) facts that have been reported.
The problem with your scenario is in step 6.
If they lack concrete evidence then there is no reason for them to take steps against him since he is still innocent.
As far as I'm aware, even in the UK people are not supposed to be summarily punished until proven guilty.
To quote the ever smug Leona Helmesly, "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes..." (And why is it that the most nauseating psychopaths like Helmesly, Milken, Fleiss, et. al always sport that stupid grin that just cries for a fist.)
Surely anyone who's had contact with wealthy people have noticed their underlying assumption of "I am above all rules. Those are for the little people."
Unfortunately, as much as we might not like it, they're right.
Personally I believe it's this that really tends to piss most people off as deep down they know it's true.
That reminds me of a bit from BtVS: Spike "You won. All right? You came in and you killed them and you took their land. That's what conquering nations do. It's what Caesar did, and he's not going around saying, "I came, I conquered, I felt really bad about it." The history of the world isn't people making friends. You had better weapons, and you massacred them. End of story."
As far as TFA, anything that will help China deal with the incredible smog they generate that is so bad it can be detected in California is a good thing. IIRC China has a whole lot of smog cranking coal fired power plants, and hopefully this will allow them to shut some of those down. Meanwhile we could use the tech GE has developed and start using the energy from chicken manure which is mostly methane IIRC, to generate power while providing heat to the chicken coops.
Yay!!! The destruction of a whole culture might manage to alleviate some air pollution in California, good for them! Besides, it might be true that they had the power to impose their will on the Tibetans but I hope you're not asking us to applaud them for exercising it against a peaceful nation.
You have no idea how right you are. I'm a Kiwi living in Brasil and working for IBM. I've just been told, literally an hour ago that my position will most likely be offshored to the Philippines. Apparently they're expecting labour rates in Brasil to go up. It really is a pity how capital knows no borders but people unfortunately do. Of course I have absolutely no sympathy for the Brazilian government since they haven't managed to approve my permanent visa after 18 months of processing.
In the end I'm going to vote with my feet. Bad luck for Brasil.
Mate, try Orcon. They're a little more expensive but the connection is rock solid, you do actually get the speed you pay for and they actually have technically competent support staff.
What I don't get is what the counterinsurgency campaign can offer ordinary civilians in Afghanistan. Why would they be suddenly welcomed with open arms. I would guess at best they would receive a sullen hostility. After all foreigners have been bombing the crap out of them for decades. Why would they give a crap what flag the current lot are under or what they're trying to do.
From an average Afghan's perspective, they have very little to gain from continuing this war or supporting the US. Certainly I don't think it would be obvious to them that they would be able to have a country run according to their wishes, assuming it would even be possible to gain any sort of consensus. In the end I think it's pretty obvious that the US is seen as being just as self serving and indifferent to the well being of Afghani civilians as Al-Quaeda or the Taliban. Each has their own sick agenda and the unfortunate civilians will continue to pay for the foreseeable future.
When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.
Their smugness is repeatedly brought up, and I don't quite understand how it affects the severity of their crime. Does it really matter if they're smug or remorseful, is their "crime" still not the same? If they had kept a low profile about the trial, would you then have said they don't deserve what they get?
I think it offends those who try to portray themselves as even minded when they've already judged them as guilty. After all, remorse can sometimes be a factor at sentencing.
If someone were to facilitate stealing something you created, wouldn't you want to go after whomever was helping to do that, no matter where they were located?
I suppose this is time for the inevitable copyright infringement != theft post. *sigh*
I am always perplexed at how many intelligent people say, "even if we aren't sure about MMCC, we shouldn't take the risk"
Ignoring the supposed conspiracy to take over the world by shadowy international organisations, why does it make more sense to continue doing something that you believe may have a negative effect?
I'm pretty sure that nobody would argue that MMCC is likely to have a positive effect on the environment. Given that, we're looking a scenario where either nothing we're doing has a significant effect or has a negative effect. In light of that it seems prudent to at least question whether what we're doing is a good idea.
It appears that those who are most against the idea of MMCC are afraid that the good times may finally be at an end and that we may have to actually take some responsibility for the manner in which we're behaving.
in what fantasy world does that mean the usa is responsible for anything bin laden does... even in the 1980s?
here's my wacky perception of the world: what bin laden does is the responsibility of bin laden
So presumably you don't have any issue with Iran supplying material support to Hamas? After all, what Hamas does with the money and weapons than Iran has supplied it has nothing to do with Hamas. Makes absolutely no sense why the US would choose to apply sanctions to Iran now does it?