They'll just advocate "take a pill" like a car salesman advocates buying a car..
It's alright this is how Obama-care works. If we got rid of the questionable doctors doing it, they would be replaced by illegal Mexican aliens. So relax and take another pill. The government wouldn't allow anything to harm you, would they? Of course your medicine is safe and we have more medicine to treat the side effects of the medicine, and more medicine to treat the side effects of that medicine. Just think of Obamacare as a subscription service for the latest, greatest pharmaceuticals that Big Medicine can manufacture. Every month you will recieve a new bottle to add to your collection and calm the effects of the previous prescriptions. As an added bonus, the doctors will scratch their head, stare at the chart and say" There's a new clinical trial I can put you in for a pill that cures all this". It won't of course, but it will add to the drama. Support your pharmaceutical companies and they will continue to give you the best medication they can mass produce at maximum profit, within the bounds of their intellectual property.
Take a pill!
Unions and their agendas applied to teachers ARE a large part of the problem. Besides promoting liberal ideas that have killed public education over the years, they help keep bad teachers comfortable in their jobs to continue harm and elevate costs of said bad teaching. I deny right or left leanings and purport to relying on observation and experience, unlike sycophants of either right or left.
Parents are half the problem, Teachers, the other half.
I think that was my point.
Of course my sidearm will help protect my liberties. Me and every gun owning person, at that.
Yes, I do say whatever I like to whomever I like.
I never said I killed a cop, I said; if the case warranted it, I would kill a cop as easily as anyone threatening my life.
Never changed my mind, I abide by any laws that do not conflict with my integrity or religion.
Feel free to clean my boots and there's a tip in it for you boy.
You're odd enough, I figure distended anuses would make you feel right at home.
Nope, the reason the U.S. is under tyranny came around a century ago. Go read a U.S. history book.
Nobody fantasizing about killers and vigilantes, except the over-zealous jealous Aussies who are subjects to their masters.
I have several guns.
I stand up to bleating anti-gun morons who rely on regurgitation of disinformation, rather than brains or fact all the time.
I'll repeat myself.
To deny my right to own a gun, is to open myself and family up to the dangers of criminals who would still own guns, should they be taken away.
This is the equivalent of anti-gun nuts threatening my safety and they will suffer for their threats.
Nice rant, but like all hyperboles, it left reality far behind in the second sentence.
I've used DOS originally, then some Windows and hated it pretty much from the start, so I switched to Linux as soon as I heard about it, I think it was 1997 or so. Do you know why I've been a Mac users for about 10 years now? Because it simply works. I don't have to spend half of my time on just maintaining the system and searching for obscure failure cases. I love my iMac and my iPhone because they allow me to focus almost all of my time on actually doing the work that I want to do.
To most people in this world, computers are a tool. Just like cars. Most people who own a car use it to get from A to B. Some people own cars so they can tinker with them on the weekend and replace parts just because they can - but they are a tiny minority.
I love that I could get a system running from scratch, compile my own kernel and base tools and so on. I've done it and it was a great experience. At the same time, I'm very happy that I don't actually have to do it. I'm tired of tinkering with the machine, I have actual work I want to get done. I have places A and B that I want to get to.
that Apple has banned some of the most profitable types of app, [...] For example alternative web browsers
Uh... because web browsers are certainly the most profitable software outside the app store. It's a real shame that all those multi-billion dollar browser makers cannot port their cash cows to iOS. Why does Apple not realize that thousands of jobs depend on the sales of web browsers?
The App Store only rewards Zynga for this behaviour.
The App Store doesn't give a fuck. Users reward Zynga by flocking to their copycat games while at the same time complaining that all games have become the same and there's no innovation anymore.
Sorry, but I just don't see any of those things you cited as any sort of game-changer. They are just incremental, evolutionary developments, not radical ideas that will move or create entire markets and lifestyles the way the original iPhone or iPad did.
The entirely new MacPro... is a moderately powerful PC in an awkward form factor.
The Macbook retina... is a computer with a high-resolution display but only a small physical area.
The iPhone 5S including a shift to an entirely new CPU architecture... is a smart phone that can run some apps.
An new iOS operating system... is a disaster that looks like it was designed for use in kindergarten.
An entire web / mobile based office suite... is so significant that I hadn't even registered that it was available yet until you mentioned it, probably because the whole idea of running an office suite on a touch-based mobile device is daft.
So sorry again, but I stand by my previous comments. These things might be decent technology, at least in some cases, but they just aren't anything special, and it was the anything-specials of the Jobs era that made Apple what it is today. If your hardware is no longer a radical advance over what everyone else offered, you need something special in the software instead, but the App Store has... awkward ports of puzzle games with crazy expensive in-app purchases. Oh, and iFart apps.
That's an amusing but perhaps slightly ironic comment. One of the few places left in mobile app development where someone new could really win big would be releasing a killer business app. If you could do it on the BB platform as well then they would probably throw their substantial resources behind you, because it would be in their interests to rejuvenate their platform on the back of your success.
Yeah, hate that $13 billion *developers* have made so far.
That's rather like judging the profitability of web development by how much money Facebook make. The total market value is vast, but extremely concentrated on the success stories and with massive variability.
This was entirely predictable as soon as Apple allowed user expectations to settle on buying any app, no matter how useful or entertaining, for almost no money. I'm actually a little surprised that it's taken so long for the exodus to really get going, but I guess as long as Apple's own fortunes were improving and thus the market for iOS apps was getting larger, a lot of developers held out hope that they hadn't really picked the wrong strategy.
Now that Apple's own iOS strategy is looking tired -- I can't remember any exciting new product since Jobs stood down, and iOS 7 seems to be competing with Windows Vista and Windows 8 for the "most unimpressed user base in recent computing history" award -- I suspect all but the bravest app developers or those who already won in the gold rush are checking where the exit is. And thus the vicious circle will strengthen, unless Apple can pull some sort of remarkable rabbit out of the hat to re-energise their once fanatically loyal customer base pretty soon.
There are two kinds of people who run servers without firewalls: Nitwits and professionals.
Nitwits do it because they think they don't need a firewall and it gives them a bit more performance or whatever.
Professionals do it when they know the conditions are right to justify it and they've made a risk assessment that confirms they are right. For example you run a high-traffic server that does exactly one thing on one port and the server software is robust - a firewall wouldn't do you any good, it's just additional security in case you open a port you didn't want to or such.
As the economics get tighter, it becomes much harder to support the lavish treatment that developers have given apps in the past, such as full-time staffs, offices, pixel-perfect custom designs of every screen, frequent free updates, and completely different iPhone and iPad interfaces.
This is why these app developers fail where Apple succeeds. They create apps for an environment they don't get. Apple is very much about this attention to detail in everything they do, and it's a huge part of why they are successful.
The "economics get tighter" argument is a strawman. Apple users are not the kind of people who drive to a different supermarket because the tomatoes are 5 cents cheaper there.
Become the sole developer for Blackberry app!
Thanks. I hadn't noticed that the Lords was sitting for a little longer than the Commons before the summer recess.
I'm glad to see some progress here, though it's depressing that the parliamentary debate has still been framed almost exclusively in economic terms with little advocacy for those who just want to enjoy works of art (you know, "the people"). The speech by Baroness Neville-Rolfe introducing the debate was one of the more reasonable I've seen, at least acknowledging that copyright does have to be a balancing act if it's going to command any respect and does have to keep up with changing technology. Clearly most of her peers don't see this as anything other than a change in the law that might cost a business money and should therefore be rejected in their mind, with not a single word from some of them acknowledging that the status quo might not be appropriate or in the best interests of the people of this country. At least the final person to speak, the Earl of Erroll, managed to get some common sense onto the record on behalf of the other 99%.
Some of the speakers also seemed to think this is the end of the debate, when to many of us it is at most a baby step toward making IP laws fit for purpose in the 21st century. Writing as someone who makes a living creating knowledge works that are protected by copyright and runs multiple businesses using various commercial models, I don't recognise much of what they claim the "industry" wants, nor do I expect any of my businesses will lose a single penny of revenue as a result of any of the proposed changes.
It's also sad that they seem ignorant (wilfully or otherwise) of the fact that these new rules will be almost meaningless for many types of work as long as technical protection measures are allowed to override them. What is the point of creating an exception to something otherwise prohibited by law if you're just going to let it be trivially prohibited in some other way anyway? They even acknowledge this themselves in another context, when talking about contract override. And then they amusingly suggest that the current situation "risks the law falling into disrepute". I'm pretty sure the law on copyright has been in disrepute for several decades by now.
In the UK there is still no private copying exemption from the Digital Economy Act and other related copyright law, despite recommendations to do so.
There was supposed to be some progress on implementing this very recently, but it seems to have faded out for reasons I haven't yet been able to identify. I couldn't find any relevant Parliamentary debates over the past few weeks and the House of Commons has now risen for the summer and won't be back until September, so maybe they just ran out of time to schedule it. However, I'm not sure whether the House needs to be sitting for the remaining work to be completed or whether the primary legislation has already been set up and it's just ministerial decisions now.