I’m surfing along a wave on the ocean called the Internet, and my board catches on an article on the Clean Water Act.
The article states
Rep. James L. Oberstar, chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said he’s trying to return the law to where it was before 2001, when the Supreme Court issued the first of two rulings that said the Clean Water Act’s use of “navigable” limits the government’s oversight to major rivers, lakes and similar waterways.
…
“Clean, safe water is a right for all Americans,” said Mr. Oberstar, Minnesota Democrat. “Unless we act, the law can’t ensure that right. Because of the Supreme Court decisions, companies have spilled oil, carcinogens and bacteria into the lakes, rivers and other waters without being fined or prosecuted.”
Critical Thinking?
Is “spilling oil, carcinogens, and bacteria” on upland soil acceptable to Mr. Oberstar? Spilling oil, carcinogens, and bacteria on upland areas where kids play is not acceptable to me or others I have talked to regarding this topic.
Trying to limit the dumping of pollution by protecting water is like reducing the wearing of jewels in an attempt to reduce theft…
So why make a limited argument that does nothing to stop the “dumping of oil, carcinogens,” or other compounds and items that we don’t want dumped … anywhere?
Logic
No dumping = clean water and clean uplands.
Sticks and Stones…
Why hasn’t name-calling been left back in the fifth grade?
The article states Mr. Oberstar said
“I think our opponents are just in some weird place where they’re frantically trying to fix the facts to the conclusion they’re trying to drive,” he said. “What is it that they think they’re going to gain politically and otherwise by being against motherhood and apple pie?”
I tell my kids not to act all “high-and-mighty.” I think I’ll have to suggest that Mr. Oberstar isn’t for “motherhood and apple pie” just because he is for “clean water.” Give me a break…
My Thoughts. Yes, I have a few…
Name-calling makes your argument look weak on the merits (which it its). Stop…
Pulling on emotions does not address the science or logic, and using emotional responses makes me think your argument is weak (which it is). Use logic, critical thinking, and science to support your position.
I am not against clean water. Actually, I am for the appropriate regulation of water.
However, I have pointed out that regulating water does nothing for keeping upland areas clean, non-polluted, and appropriately used. We need to think bigger and protect the forest, not just the trees “we” are interested in protecting or using…
Summary
What we want to do is stop the dumping of oil, carcinogens, and other “pollution.” We want to stop the dumping everywhere, not just in water because dumping it anywhere will affect Man and the rest of the environment. Why wait the 150 years it might take the pollution to get to the water before being able to do anything about the pollution? That just doesn’t make sense…
Lets regulate the disposal of pollutants so that we can keep waters (including wetlands), uplands, and the air clean.
An article on TechCrunch, of all places, discusses segregation…
The author states
A quick look at my browser history shows that in the past 24 hours I’ve visited BBC News Online, the New York Times and the Guardian. Liberal news organisations all. But in that same time period, I’ve also checked in to the Murdoch-owned Sun newspaper, the Drudge Report and even Fox News (several times). According to the study, then, I’m an open minded person with a balanced news diet. But of course I’m nothing of the sort. In reality, my reasons for visiting FoxNews.com are the same as those of most of my cheese-eating, US-hating, Osama-hugging, socialist liberal friends – I’m checking in on the enemy, hoping to find something outrageous to back up my pre-existing biases against the American right. And before any Proud Hannity-waving Patriots reading this get too outraged by that confession, admit it: you visit the Guardian and the New York Times for precisely the same, if polar opposite, reasons.
Ah… No it isn’t.
What you say about your activity and browsing history says something about you and not about anyone else. You see, you aggregate everyone in with you because you are ashamed of your behaviour.
Fine, but don’t assume you are no worse than anyone else. You might be better than some too…
However, you are generalizing, and generalizing causes many problems…
There is ONE race.
The Human Race.
We are not cats and dogs that can not breed. Biologically, there may be differences between different people from different places, but the skin color is not the dividing factor. The skin color is similar to wider hips, different teeth structure, and other anatomical differences.
You see, we are what has evolved through our ancestors. Whatever gene may have given them an adaptive advantage is displayed in us today. It could be an adaptive disadvantage but one that has survived! Color may be one of those, but color is then just like other adaptive advantages depending on when/where our ancestors developed.
Don’t go jump on “black” was here first, so “white” is more advanced!
Hogwash. Meat-eating animals are said, by experts, to have been here before plant eaters. Does that make vegetarians more “advanced?” No, it means that it took time for evolution to allow for the development of the 7 stomachs or other advantage that allows animals to adequately use vegetative matter as a food source… Alternatively, it could mean that it took a while for eating vegetables to be an advantage over eating meat…
Think Critically rather than just assume…
What I think
If you are “white,” go visit Disparaging Terms (no longer active, my apologies–this site was run by Darrell and was an interesting read regarding said terms). Go visit Afrospear. It is another nice site about customs and people you might not be aware of but who are, contrary to what you might have ‘heard,’ exactly like you (just close your eyes and think about what they are going through).
Go visit different sites to LEARN how you have been brainwashed and how you have assumed certain truths even though you have no idea whether what you have been told is true…
Read “Public Opinion” by Walter Lippmann.
Think Critically.
How can you be so ignorant to think a person’s skin color makes them better or worse than another person with another skin color?
Where do you draw the line?
What is an ethnic group? I don’t like the term “race” because I think we are one race-human. What distinguishes us? If a white person marries a black person and has a kid who marries the child of a Japanese person and a Mexican, what is their child’s race? Assuming it is “black” because there is some black in there is just as stupid as labeling them white.
What we need to do…
We need to look at our similarities rather than our differences. We are human.
Looking out for “our own”-whether the “Mexican” hotel workers described in the post on TechCrunch or other “groups-means we are focusing on one part of who we are at the expense of the whole. We will NEVER get to view us as similar if we focus on the differences.
My Solution
One law to guarantee fairness for all. No special treatment for any group–we all have the same protection under the law.
We can’t correct past errors by giving people special treatment or other value. Rather, we have to erase the incorrect action, the cause of the past bad action–the discrimination.
Realistically, we can’t give the USA back to the Souix and other tribes. We can’t track or pay anyone for all past transgressions. What we can do is guarantee, to the best of our ability, that everyone is entitled to the same treatment under the law.
If we don’t attempt to guarantee equal treatment to all, aren’t we focusing special attention on some group? If we focus ‘our’ attention on ‘our group,’ aren’t we guilty of the same behavior that caused ‘us’ the injustice, the discrimination, in the first place? We would be, in effect, putting ‘ourselves’ first ahead of ‘others.’ Isn’t that what we are trying to avoid?
They found that among kids who said their parents never allowed them to watch R-rated movies, few took up drinking over the next couple of years.
What they don’t say is what was the percentage that were drinking from both groups after “the next couple of years.”
What gets me about this type of reporting is that it is incomplete and reports … nothing.
If the study doesn’t address the language, you, as a critical thinker, have to ask why they phrased their findings such that “few took up drinking over the next couple of years.” For all I know, the kids that watched R-rated movies took it up quicker but didn’t go overboard (i.e., get drunk) because they realized what drinking could do…
I drank when I was “under-age” since I grew up outside the USA. Nobody thought anything of it, and I drink “socially” now-a glass or two of wine a week. Not exactly a drunk by any means. Likewise, I was never drunk through high school. Why? I had many friends who were drunk and they all looked stupid, did stupid things, and didn’t remember a thing. We were all part of the popular group, but my friends who drank all thought the attention was good instead of being laughed at…
Trying to tell them that was met with ridicule… Of course, many of them were to become alcoholics later in life. However, I doubt R-rated movies had anything to do with whether or not they were “drunks.” Rather, what makes people drink too much is an inability to deal with emotions and disappointment, not to mention how to move forward and improve your life.
Seems like we should be teaching psychology in elementary school…
This type of reporting is like saying a blackout causes many pregnancies… I hate to break it down, but intercourse, with ejaculation while inside the female, is what causes these pregnancies. If you don’t know the difference, you are not thinking critically…
Apple had a commercial in 1984 to debut their Macintosh computer. As shown on Google, of all places:
Oh, right… You apple iDevice folks can’t watch that. Sorry, but do enjoy the ‘lite’ version of the full web experience… (note, that is sarcasm…).
I’ve updated the link to show a YouTube video so that people with an iDevice can watch the video… Imagine just seeing a blank spot on the page and you’ll understand that the iDevice, no matter how much you like yours, does not provide the full-web experience…
The commercial had a single old white male stating corporate ideology on a screen. The ideology stated:
Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology. Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!
Fast Forward 26 years
Doesn’t that old what man sound like Steve Jobs? Let us replay that text with editorial comments inserted…
Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives (Apple). We have created for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology (for all things Apple). Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests (Adobe Flash, porn, etc.) of contradictory and confusing truths (the public wants flash). Our Unification of Thoughts (iDevice) is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people (Apple), with one will (Apple), one resolve (No Flash, and No “intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool,” and no to non-Apple-approved software), one cause (Apple). Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion (Adobe Flash is closed, Apple is Open). We shall prevail!
OMG!
I wonder if Steve actually reads that text and sees what Apple has become…
Apple 1984
I loved Apple in 1984–Woz & Jobs. I had an Apple //e, a Mac+ was on the way, and things were good.
Apple 2010
Recently, I’ve had a Powerbook Pro and an iPhone.
Apple limits applications on iPlatform and states no application can be created/published using “intermediary translation or compatibility layer[s] or tool[s].”
New Apple Strategy…
Apple’s “new” corporate strategy does not woo me or seem to make much logical sence for a user of an Apple device. I will tear down Steve’s recent “Flash Memo” to show you Apple’s and Steve’s new “Unification of Thoughts.”
First, there is open…
Steve states
Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.
Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript–all open standards.
Flash is proprietary, no question. So are most of Apple’s software offerings. Perhaps they will give away Filemaker-No, I am sure Steve does not consider databases a “standard pertaining to the web.”
Second, there’s the “full web.”
Steve points out
Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads.
But, wait… What about H.264? As you know, Steve suggests we use HTML5 and H264… However, Wikipedia states
In countries where patents on software algorithms are upheld, vendors and commercial users of products which make use of H.264/AVC are expected to pay patent licensing royalties for the patented technology[8] that their products use. This applies to the Baseline Profile as well.[9] A private organization known as MPEG LA, which is not affiliated in any way with the MPEG standardization organization, administers the licenses for patents applying to this standard, as well as the patent pools for MPEG-2 Part 1 Systems, MPEG-2 Part 2 Video, MPEG-4 Part 2 Video, and other technologies. The last US MPEG LA patents for H.264 may not expire until 2028[10].
On February 2, 2010 MPEG LA announced that H.264-encoded Internet Video that is free to end users would continue to be exempt from royalty fees until at least December 31, 2015.[11] However, other fees remain in place. The license terms are updated in 5-year blocks.[12]
H264 is not open. Hmmm…
In addition, H264 is a family of codecs for video compression… It is not a system to let the user not worry about what codecs are used in the streaming video and it does not allow developers create interactive games. To compare Flash and H264 is like comparing Apples and IBMs…
Don’t get caught up in the “Unification of Thoughts” which isn’t stated to contain any truths. Rather, focus on the contradictory statements from the “different sides” and try to wade through the confusion to find the truth.
Third, there’s reliability, security and performance.
Some of what Steve says is true, but it is mixed. Steve states
We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash.
Flash makes Macs crash? I’ve had my most recent mac for 3 years, and no Flash has caused it to crash. With all the Flash stuff my kids watch and play, I would have expected my Mac to crash if any Mac was going to crash due to Flash, my Mac would have been the one.
I’m just saying…
Honestly, Flash has been an issue with iMacs. However, Apple is likely the culprit since the issue with iMacs crashing does not extend to all of the other Macs. Perhaps something Apple did with the iMac is the cause. Research…
It is fine to accept what people say, but don’t accept without questioning…
Fourth, there’s battery life.
Put a stronger battery in the iDevice! You say people are going to be using the device all day? I can’t agree with the statement that Flash will drain the battery more than how the user will use the device.
I don’t get a full day from my iPhone, and I haven’t gotten a full day since I have had the device. I know I use my iPhone more than most, but limits on battery life is why manufacturers allow the users to switch batteries.
So Steve, your argument about battery life would force you to admit that Apple should have allowed users to switch batteries–to allow continued use without worrying (except for the time it takes to switch the battery) about battery life.
Fifth, there’s Touch.
There is touch, but the Treo650 had the UI that the iPhone uses back in 1994, three years before the introduction of the iPhone…
Steve states
Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.
Ah, sure. So were most web-pages that are still viewed on the iDevices… Could they be modified to be more “touch-sensitive?” Sure, but I don’t think I want all of the web to be reduced to small, bland lists of text that appears on my iPhone when sites tend to reduce their full content site to an iDevice format. Point your iDevice to Boy Genius and look at the difference between the “full site” and that site reduced for the iDevice. Which do you want to preserve?
The Full Site. Me too…
Sixth, the most important reason.
Steve states
We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform.
Perhaps this is the difference between Steve and Woz, but that statement by Steve is false, a blatant lie. Woz could use a presence at Apple now (in my humble opinion).
“How?” You ask.
Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up… Sorry, I love that quote from The Princess Bride…
There are good apps that were created using just such an intermediary layer of software. There are apps that are still in the app store that are popular. Do a Yahoo or Google search to see all of the posts about this. There are also many really bad apps that were created using just the Apple-approved options (Objective-C, Cocoa, or whatever…).
Don’t think so? Okay, I’ll link a few since you are, a little lazy… Here, here, here, and here. That is just for starters… You really need to look at the comments too…
There are many sites analyzing Steve’s Flash Memo, and most seem to come to the same conclusion… Here is just one.
Conclusions
In closing, Steve states
Flash was created during the PC era
It sure was Steve, and I want it on my mobile devices-all of them. Flash was created since 1984, since the Mac has been out. Wikipedia has a nice “History of Flash” that states
The precursor to the Flash application was SmartSketch, a drawing application for pen computers running the PenPoint OS developed by Jonathan Gay, who began working on it in college and extended the idea for Silicon Beach Software and its successors.
When PenPoint failed in the marketplace, SmartSketch was ported to Microsoft Windows and Mac OS. With the Internet becoming more popular, SmartSketch was re-released as FutureSplash, a vector-based web animation in competition with Macromedia Shockwave. In 1995, SmartSketch was further modified with frame-by-frame animation features and re-released as FutureSplash Animator on multiple platforms. The product was offered to Adobe and used by Microsoft in its early work with the Internet (MSN). In 1996, FutureSplash was acquired by Macromedia and released as Flash, contracting “Future” and “Splash”.
So the technology was developed for Windows and Macintosh OS. Flash was “released” in 1996, well after Macs were out and about…
I see Steve disagrees, and this has caused Apple to become what they “rebelled” against back in 1984. That Steve (and some of you) don’t see this is the subject of my novel (not yet published).
People tend to change over time, forgetting what made them full of “drive” when they started out with an “open” mind. You get old, and you think your way is “the only way.” Wait, wasn’t that the 1984 Commercial?
Isn’t the following what Apple was against in 1984?
Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology. Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!
If so, why is Apple pushing it now?
My Thoughts
Now I find myself looking elsewhere because Apple has become what they fought against when they released their Macintosh. Apple wanted to provide a better experience for the user. Apple wanted to bring a pretty UI and ease of use.
What do they want now? It seems they are the old man in the 1984 video who wants to push hardware… Remember, Apple says that hardware is key. It is the iDevice that provides the user experience.
I disagree. As Apple proved when switching from the PowerPC to the x86, it is the software that keeps the user enthralled. What keeps users enthralled is not hardware, and I don’t think the OS is what keeps a user. You have to admit, nobody would use OS/X if there was no software for use on OS/X…
Looking Forward
What Apple is now pushing, I am not buying…
So, I go out into the daylight and look at all the advances in technology we have since 1984, and I find most of them make my life better… Even if some firms try to keep me bottled up within their world vision (i.e., Unification of Thoughts), I find myself wanting to be free…
There are no pictures of breasts or any other NSFW item here. If you were just looking for that “item,” you can now leave. However, please stay and read the post if you are interested in how you think…
A woman, Jen McCreight, has posted a picture of herself showing some cleavage to oppose a statement made by a male Islamic Cleric. The news post states
“Many women who do not dress modestly… lead young men astray, corrupting their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes,” Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted last week as saying by Iranian media.
Comedic Insertion
Yes.. Those ARE the two I was looking for…
Sorry, couldn’t help it, there was some “force” affecting me when I made that statement…
If you still don’t get it, well… I can’t help, and I apologize for the use of said language above…
Back to the Story
I am always surprised when a person, religious or not, makes a statement about women and the effects women have on men - different from how women affect men (just to be clear).
Humans have wanted to separate themselves and their “compatriots” into cliques for a very long time. Such separations are to make “us” feel “better” than “them.” It doesn’t matter who “us” and “them” are or whether or not anyone actually is better, but the breakdown of humans into sub-groups continues today.
A woman wears a “skimpy” outfit, and people can imagine what that looks like… Often they are imagining a similar outfit, and they ought to be asking themselves why they have that image associated with that word or phrase.
People think of a “successful man” and often think of a man in a suit and sporting a tie. People think of a “librarian” and an image comes to mind. Why?
Each society has certain similar belief patters, often from religious or social customs. Fashions change because the “new” is “cool” and worn by “that guy” or “that girl” rather than the new “fashion” offering some benefit to the user over the “old” fashion.
We have beliefs that we have due to our parents, our friends, our cliques, our environment, our religion, our society, marketing forces, and other issues we have to deal with as humans. Often, we get “beliefs” because our parents had those beliefs–many times, we haven’t thought why we think that way, we just do…
It is time to start realizing that thinking a girl in a mini-skirt, with thigh-high hose, knee-high boots, and too-tight spaghetti-strap shirt is “loose” or “morally lascivious person” may be wrong. What you are thinking says something about you rather than the person you are looking at while you think those thoughts. You should ask yourself why you have those thoughts and whether those thoughts are generalizations, outright lies, or other baggage that has kept you “prisoner” to your raising (sometimes it is like brainwashing).
Imagine someone coming up to you and yelling, “You are are a stupid (insert your insult here)!” Does the statement, in any way, define you, the person at whom the insult is directed? No. The statement being made says something about the speaker.
Back to Nature
A lion hunts to feed itself and, perhaps, the other lions. The lion does not go out looking for a “hot” meal… (sorry, I’ll try to resist…). If a lion kills a lamb, we don’t blame the lamb for being attractive, for being chased, or for being eaten (sorry, I’m not really trying…). Rather, the lion made a choice on what to kill. The lion may like the taste of lamb, but any lamb would work. The lamb killed was likely sick, injured, or old and not the voluptuous, athletic animal which is better able to evade the lion’s attack.
My Thoughts
Don’t blame the wolf in the sheep’s clothes. The wolf is a wolf and will hunt sheep. It is irrelevant that the religions of the world have problems with the wolf who dresses in a sheep’s clothing (yep, went there again).
Humans will think in sexual terms. We are, after all, animals. We can procreate, or breed as a friend of mine likes to say. Sexual activity feels good because it helps guarantee the continuation of the species.
If you are religious, you have to wonder why God made it feel so good–he could have made it feeling-free. Since it does feel good, you have to admit that God created sexual activity that way for a reason. While it may be to procreate, God may have wanted animals to have a way to get rid of stress. I don’t presume to know all of the reasons, but I can tell you evolution will favor those species that get pleasure from sexual activity. As a matter of fact, I will state that if a certain group of humans got MORE pleasure form sex than others, those populations would tend to grow faster than the others… How is that for behavioral biology? I guess most everyone can grasp that concept…
Summary
Don’t blame women for a man’s activity. Rather, blame the man for not being able to control his emotions and desires. The woman had no way of forcing the man to do anything. Rather, the man chose to act.
This is like arresting prostitutes to stop the desire some men have for sexual activity… It just isn’t going to work folks.
Perhaps the religious community should look to the force for help. If they find the force, they could once again get men to state…
So I am seriously considering deleting my Facebook account. At a minimum, I am thinking of not logging in again without first deleting all of the cookies stored on my computer…
If you aren’t sure why, please go read this article and the subsequent comments… Dastardly…
How could it end?
Imagine if everyone had their own domain or used a social site that did not limit acces to those who signed into the social site-Wordpress or Blogger for instance. Sites like this where you don’t have to “sign in” to read the posts.
Now, write code that creates an app, the Tailor Aggregator Program, called TAP for short, that would go out and get copies of posts from these sites and aggregate them (”tap them”) with relevant pics and post all of this information and data on you computer or mobile device. “Tailor” because the user controls, tailors, the content and how it is shown
It could be posted by date/time or could be limited in another manner…
Either way, you would have constant contact with all “you folks” just like you do know, you just wouldn’t be giving Facebook or any other site the right to sell your data.
To help you keep your own ad revenue up, the TAP software could allow a person to visit your site by tapping a comment link or by clicking said link if there was no touch screen-the process could still be called “tapping.”
This would allow constant contact by keeping sites open and would allow the user to limit whose information they saw since many add friends whose data they don’t want to see simply because they don’t want to be rude.
Be honest, who has 1453 friends and who is constantly and seriously in touch with each of them?
Just a thought. I, of course, want credit or any app created, and I expect royalty checks… :). I am starting a programming stint now to work on this idea… Wish me luck ;p
LOTRO is Lord of The Rings On-line, a Massively Multi-Player Role-Playing Game (MMRPG) set in the Tolkien Universe with stories and play based on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien.
The game lets you play several races (Man, Elf, Dwarf, and Hobbit) and play several classes (Guardian, Champion, Warden, Hunter, Lore-Master (LM), Burglar, Rune-Keeper (RK), Minstrel, and Captain). Each class can use different types of armor (e.g., LMs and RKs can ony use light armor; Minstrel, Hunter, Wardens, and Burglars can use Medium armor; and Captains, Guardians, and Champions can use Heavy Armor). If you can use Heavy Armor, you can use Medium and Light armor as well, although they will not provide you with the same defense (they provide less).
When you join a fellowship (a group of players trying to accomplish a quest or a goal), you likely have a mixed group of races and classes–one or two front-liners, one or two healers, and one or two ranged attackers.
When you defeat an enemy, it is possible to allow everyone to “roll” on the resulting loot (treasure dropped by enemies or stored in chests).
The question a good player asks is “Do I need that?”
Most players don’t ask that….they just hit “roll”…
Lets say your fellowship is comprised of:
Guardian, level 64;
Champion, level 63;
Captain, level 61;
Hunter, level 60;
Rune Keeper, level 58; and
Lore Master, level 58.
There is NO reason for the Guardian or Hunter to roll an light armor shoes that can be used by those of level 58 and up. You see, the Guardian and Hunter will want Heavy and Medium armor shoes, respectively. Also, the higher-level characters likely have better armor than that which has dropped anyway–meaning the lvl 60 Hunter likely already has shoes that provide better armor and other benefits than those provided by the level 58 shoes that are available…
If they roll on them when the Rune Keeper and Lore Master can use them now, and not use all the medium and heavy armor that may fall, they are being selfish and greedy–in my opinion.
I don’t know how else to describe it.
Similarly, the RK and LM have no reason to roll an any medium or heavy armor, especially if it is “Bind on Acquire” (that means that item is bound to the character that wins the item and can not be used by other characters).
If you really need that 10 silver pieces, at least offer to not roll for 10 silver pieces… There is no need to take something you are not going to use and simply sell to the merchant for 10 silver when another member of your group CAN and WOULD use the items on their person…
I was visiting a site for teachers, and I noticed a few threads. One deals with a student that “poops in their pants” and the other deals with a child that “drools” and spreads said drool over their desk.
Let me show you a response to the first:
i had a pooper several years ago (i teach 6th!)
it was a medical condition….can’t remember the actual name of it–something like endocrinosis (that’s not it!) encropsis….something….
anyway, he really didn’t know he was going or had control–but he would know he had gone–but he just sat in it–and smelled! whoowee!
that kid had parents that were WAY too old to be having kids so they had a “different” parenting style with him. for example, they took him to a 9:00 showing of a rated R movie on a school night–not abusive “bad” parents–just…..different.
anyway, my kid ended up in the TLC room (ED students) but it wasn’t the pooping that caused this–they had been working on that referral process in 5th grade too.
good luck!
Yes, the teacher said, “I had a pooper.”
Here is another…
As the school year has progressed, I’ve been learning more about my students (I’ve been looking at their cums, IEPs, etc.). I have one student, a male, who has a one on one aide. His IEP is as thick as a book! Anyway, I knew right off the bat that he had some form of ADHD, and that was documented in the IEP. It says he has sensory difficulties, ADHD, and processing difficulties. He is pretty smart, though. As I talked to some of his past teachers, they all told me they had a terrible time with him because he would poop his pants, starting from 1st grade on up! His former teachers would even find his “stuff” in the room (one time behind a bookcase! EEEWWW!). One teacher called the union, the health department, but no one could do anything about it.
There is a total of ONE LINE on his entire IEP that mentions “bowel problems”. There were no behavior modifications for this. Meanwhile, I know of at least 2 occasions where he has pooped his pants in my classroom - 4th grade! He refuses to acknowledge it happened, even though we smell it. Little parent support - parents have their head in the sand, don’t know what they think when he comes home after sitting in his “stuff” all day! They won’t even take him to the doctor to see if it is physiological or emotional (I think emotional). Don’t you think this kid should be in an ED class of some kind? Tomorrow I willl send him to the office if he does it again, and let them handle it. What would you suggest? Haven’t met the parents yet. Should I call another IEP for him, even though he’s not due for one until April? What if the parents don’t care? How can I deal with this for the rest of the year???
My Comment
No, I don’t think he needs to be in an ED class of some kind… Perhaps you need to act mature and deal with the situation like an adult. Complaining that YOU have to deal with the situation is not helping the student or you. Rather, your frustration and lack of patience and understanding is the problem. If you understood what encopresis was, you would know that up to 2% of “kids,” up to age 17 even, suffer from this medical condition (that can be treated and cured).
Instead, most of the teachers seemed to say make an issue out of it in class. Make the child acknowledge he did poop in his pants! As if any child wants to acknowledge to the whole class they just pooped in their pants.
Again, encopresis is a medical condition, and the child may not feel it or smell it due to the condition. While YOU, the teacher, do not understand that issue, I bet you understand a situation where people who live around a paper mill no longer smell the mill… If you can understand that, you should understand the child in your class…
Call a meeting with the parents. Explain the issue and show them what encopresis means. Ask them if they are seeing a medical doctor (physician) and recommend they see one if they currently are not discussing the issue with a physician.
Simple to solve that crap… Just be patient with them as the treatment progresses just as everyone will be patient with you, the teacher, as you try to not be so judgmental about those who you are supposed to be supporting and teaching…
Drool
The second posting dealt with a child that drooled on their desk and spread the saliva over the desk.
The poster original poster stated
I had a student (1st grade) taking the saliva out of his mouth and spreading it all over the activity table like finger paint. YUCK. It is a kid with severe food allergies and the class families go out of their way to keep this kid safe. Then he thinks nothing of spreading his germs to the others. 20 years of teaching and I have never had a kid take the drool out of their mouth and spread it around.
A comment followed that, in part, stated
that kid had parents that were WAY too old to be having kids so they had a “different” parenting style with him. for example, they took him to a 9:00 showing of a rated R movie on a school night–not abusive “bad” parents–just…..different.
Yes, parents that are “too old” to be having kids leads to kids having problems and “issues.” I’m not even going to address the judgment of the parenting style comment regarding the 9:00pm, R-rated movie… On this “rating” topic, I think the “rating” board is rather conservative (as I think, obviously, is the teacher).
The funniest yet most offensive comment was
All I can see is ewwwwwwwwwwwwww! Gagging as I read.
Yes, constructive commenting…
My response?
I hate to say it, but why does a teacher respond with
” All I can see is ewwwwwwwwwwwwww! Gagging as I read.”
Children are not adults, and they do not think as we do. Some children have development problems, and we should not expect them to “act” or behave like everyone else.
Yet, you will kiss someone else and share the same bacteria that is in their mouth and, likely, think nothing of it or even enjoy it… Logic in our thinking, please…
Simply make him/her clean the table and explain why such behavior is “not allowed” in your class. Punishment may not help in certain situations where a medical and/or behavioral reason explains the issue…such as encopresis (soiling of the pants by those who are already potty-trained).
Learn that your values are yours and should not be “taught” to the kids. What? Exclude a child from a group or embarrass them due to some behavior? Right, lets teach our kids that type of behavior…
Instead, we should understand their issues (at least try to understand them). A thread on here once said “I have a pooper too,” and I read that and cringed. Right, as if all of us “teachers” are perfect… The term is encopresis, and it is a medical issue that generally can be solved. Publicizing the issue and embarrassing the child does not help. Rather, that type of behavior shows an inability to be part of a solution in an appropriate way (and says something about you as a Teacher and a person doesn’t it?).
Your “drooling” child could have a behavioral problem and/or a medical problem. Talk to the parent(s), but why embarrass the child? That solves nothing and causes many other problems–social stigma, cliques, bullying, …
Talk to the child, explain your rules and reasoning, and discuss the issue with a parent or with all parents.
Whatever you decide, public embarrassment is NOT appropriate and leads to many more problems than it solves.
Summary
The teachers had not experienced anything like they were seeing (or smelling). Yet, they, like many humans, tend to jump to conclusions regarding the children, the parents, the problem, and possible solutions rather than identify the problem (such as encopresis) and how to constructively deal with the issue facing them and their classes.
Teachers are not expected to know everything, but they are expected to learn and discuss relevant issues without assuming… We know what it means when we assume…
Teachers are supposed to NOT act like kids or high-schoolers. Teachers should not want to “make an example” out of a child since such action leads to bullying, social stigma, and cliques. The teacher should want to solve the problem 1-on-1 with the student. I guess it is possible the teacher would prefer the principal deal with the teacher’s issues in front of the whole faculty… No, what was I thinking?
So, teachers… Please research.
A simple google or yahoo for “poop pants 10-year old” would bring up references to encopresis and, likely, your forum topic. How hard would it be for you to look at those definitions, call a meeting with the parents, and suggest some medical care/follow-up?
Regarding the child that drooled, I think the simple response is to make the child clean up the saliva and desktop, discuss why such behavior is not allowed in the class, and call a parent meeting if the child continues with the behavior-in case there is a medical or psychological reason for the student’s behavior.
Please tell me you wouldn’t have reacted like most of those other responders… Identify the problem, solve the problem. Creating more problems for the child creates by publicly getting the child to admit their actions, embarrassing the child, or other “punishment” may more problems for you since you will have to deal with name-calling, social cliques, bullying, and other kid-related problems.
Please tell me that you as adults don’t continue to name-call? If so, please look up bullying and other psychology-related posts that discusses why people name-call or attempt to make others “look bad.” You might learn something and become more mature-not to mention a better person.
Bill Thompson has a post over on the BBC where he argues copyright law needs to be severely limited, in his words
This has got to stop. We have to say “enough is enough” to those who hold copyrights in songs and images and words and videos. We must refuse to remake the digital world in order to serve only their interests.
Right…
Why does he argue this is important?
He states
It would be a tragedy if the network the people of East Africa found, now that they have fast fibre links to the rest of the internet, was locked-down, limited and restricted by laws passed to placate fearful Western rights holders and they decided, as a result, that it wasn’t worth joining.
Lack of Logic and Reason
Bill does not seem to realize that freedom is helped by Copyright. Wait, you say. That can’t be! I can’t download all the movies, books, and songs I want! How is that free?!
Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up…
I have an idea for (a book, a movie, or a song). I go through the “trouble” to take the time to create this “content” to release it to the world. I can release it into the Public Domain if I so want, but I might want to be compensated for the “trouble,” time and effort, it took for me to create this “work.” So I release it as copyrighted material.
The material gets out there and is purchased or licensed (for a fee) by those who appreciate the content enough to pay for it. Those who don’t want to buy it are not forced to buy anything.
My “content” goes through marketing, publishing, and distribution–all employing many people. This “content” I copyrighted and made available for purchase or license is helping support jobs (perhaps yours?).
Yet, Bill argues copyright should be severely limited so that “people of East Africa” can have access to all of this data-not to “placate fearful Western rights holders,” but to support their rights to their own copyrighted material that is now available to the rest of the world due to their “fast fibre links to the rest of the [I]nternet.”
People, everything in life is not free. If everything was free, how would you get paid? Nobody would be selling anything?
Does the “content” being a digital file rather than an actual CD or DVD make it “less valuable” for those who want the content or does it simply make the distribution of that content easier and less restrictive?
I don’t think Bill suggests you walk into the local market to steal the candy you want without paying for the merchandise. Yet, he suggests that “digital content” should be freely-available without legal protections?
He states
There is so much more to online life than watching ripped-off copies of big-budget movies or looking at low-resolution cameraphone videos of bands.
What does he mean by “ripped-off?” Does he mean “stolen” or simply “copied?” It makes a difference doesn’t it?
While there IS more to the Internet, Copyright should still protect “content.”
Why?
Google can not copy my material and reproduce it on their site in its entirety. Why? Copyright laws prevent that type of “cut and paste” copying of copyrighted material.
If Copyright were weakened, all of those who create “content” may make NO money from the content itself since Google, Yahoo, or any wahoo with an illegal site (e.g., illegal torrent site for example) could copy all of the content and post it on their site. People would flock to these sites to get all of the data in one place. As a creator of “content,” would you keep creating if all of your work and time was benefiting someone somewhere else rather than you?
Not unless you were already independently wealthy and didn’t care…
BBC…
The post states Bill works for the BBC. I wonder how much of their content copy-righted material Bill has released to YouTube-especially if the BBC was protecting their legal right to some of that material.
Last time I looked, the BBC took Copyright pretty seriously…
Copyright Notice
All rights, including copyright, in the content of these BBC web pages are owned or controlled for these purposes by the BBC.
In accessing the BBC’s web pages, you agree that you may only download the content for your own personal non-commercial use.
Except where expressly stated otherwise, you are not permitted to copy, broadcast, download, store (in any medium), transmit, show or play in public, adapt or change in any way the content of these BBC web pages for any other purpose whatsoever without the prior written permission of the BBC.
Doesn’t that make Bill right?
No. As a matter of fact, that makes Bill wrong.
Here is why…
The legal Copyright lets the BBC (the content provider) dictate who can use what content and how they can use it.
Notice the BBC allows you to ‘
In accessing the BBC’s web pages, you agree that you may only download the content for your own personal non-commercial use.
That likely makes Bill happy since it means the people of East Africa (and everywhere else) can use the copyrighted material owned and provided by the BBC for non-commercial use. This Copyright Law protects the BBC from someone putting all of this data up on their server in hopes of attracting everyone to their site to get content. BBC makes money, Bill can keep his job, and people who have NO creative talent can not benefit by “stealing” everyone’s content.
Bill should be supporting Copyright Law. Just because he doesn’t think everything should have a cost doesn’t mean he is right.
Want to see him agree?
The BBC site states
Bill Thompson is an independent journalist and regular commentator on the BBC World Service programme Digital Planet. He is currently working with the BBC on its archive project.
Ask Bill to agree to not sign any contract for any “independent” journalism that gives the distributor or contractor any ability to limit the distribution, publication, or other legal right to the “content” Bill is asked to create for the company hiring him. Basically, ask Bill to release all of his work into the Public Domain.
My guess is that Bill will not agree to reduce the value of his “time” and “effort” such that he can not afford to do what he likes to do.
In Closing
Copyright Law isn’t the problem. The problem is the removal of the “fair use” clause under USA law and similar provisions for such use under International Law.
If I purchase a DVD of “Criminal Intent,” I feel as if I am buying is the ability to watch the content-the movie. In reality, you are purchasing a license to view the content (movie) on the enclosed media (the DVD). I know, that doesn’t seem logical…
If you copy “Criminal Intent” to your iPhone or other device, you are in violation of the DMCA in the USA and other international laws.
The “fair use” provisions would protect you from prosecution when you copy the movie in case your kids destroy the media on which the content is distributed. Again, the public thinks they are purchasing the right to view the content rather than view the content on the media provided.
While I don’t think any distributor or Copyright holder would sue you if you bought the movie and copied it to any device, they could. Either way, you have NO right to distribute the content over the internet to thousands/millions of other people. You can lend your DVD to others (so long as you don’t view the content while you have loaned the DVD out to your friend). A single person still controls the media and the content on that media–remember, you have no right to charge admission for others to view that material…
Taking gum without paying for it is a crime in the UK. Taking content without a legal right is also a crime. Just because we don’t want to pay for a Jaguar doesn’t mean we can just go take it without paying. Just because I think East Africa might appreciate Bill’s work doesn’t mean that he is willing to give away his work without being paid.
Even if Bill gives away his work for free, Copyright Law lets HIM decide that nobody else can sell his material either–guaranteeing the “free” nature of that material.
You see? Copyright allows the content creator to decide whether or not to protect the content and to what extent such content is to be protected.
People buy the iPhone-it isn’t open.
People by the Macintosh computer-it isn’t open.
People use OS/X-yep, it isn’t open.
People use Flash-it isn’t open.
People use Word-it isn’t open.
People play WoW-it isn’t open.
Do I need to go on?!
The “open” topic is a red herring to keep you focused on something other than the fact that Apple is not letting users decide what they want and what can be used on a device.
You see, Flash would be an application that would allow something on the iDevices that did not replicate a service provided by Apple.
Apple is trying to make users accept that it is the hardware (the iPhone, the iPod, the iPad) that is necessary rather than software.
You are all saying RIGHT! It is the iPhone OS that runs them all and is what we want!
Wrong. The Palm Treo 650 had a very similar GUI…go look at some videos. It is the applications and the uses that the OS allow the user to use and enjoy that is what the users want.
If Apple could move from the PowerPC to the x86 intel chip with No problem from the users perspective, why do they think the hardware on their devices is what is necessary?
Just as it isn’t about whether it is open or not, I have to say it isn’t about hardware either. I’ve said it since 2005… It is about software and apps that let the user accomplish their goals. It doesn’t matter if it is an iPhone, an Android device, a Windows phone, or the Palm WebOS. Hell, the PalmOS would still function to do all I want. It would do most of what everyone wants too.
Stop buying the line that everyone wants you to buy. Think for yourself.
Open isn’t relevant if it doesn’t do anyting useful. Hardware is irrelevant if the user can’t do anything.
Of course, I don’t think many of the general public will think for themselves to realize anything… However, I hope a few of you do.
Australia has banned, yes…banned, small-breasted women from appearing topless and in pornography because, as stated in the Inquisitr…
The ban (RC) on small breasted women in adult publications has been made by the Australian Classification Board allegedly on the grounds that such images could be construed as child pornography, even where those publications comply with American law and keep certification that performers are over 18.
Wow… Australian governmental officials try to make women realize what “real” woman look like (those without plastic surgery or those suffering from Anorexia) while baring “small-breasted” women because they look “young” due to their breast size…
The National Classification Code dictates that anything that describes or depicts a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not) in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult is Refused Classification.
Again, wow…
Ignorance and paranoia abound. Do people, or parlimentarians, stick their head in the sand and hope to save the world by trying to get everyone else to stick their head in the sand too?
Spring comes about 10 days earlier in the United States than it did two decades ago, a consequence of climate change that favors invasive species over indigenous ones, scientists said on Tuesday.
Yes… We again look at a climate change over a short period of time. While this MAY mean something, we are at the beginnings of Climate Change Science.
We are, however, affecting our environment. We release carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere, water, and soil. To assume that these releases do not have an affect is, in my opinion, wrong.
However, to say that any such change will “damage” the earth is just as, in my opinion, wrong.
Why?
Was the asteroid/meteor that hit the earth about 65 million years ago (by best estimates) create a pollution event that let Humans evolve and become what we are today? In the past, did “supervolcanoes” create events that altered global temperature? Did fires or natural populations alter plant species/densities and alter global temperatures? Did that “destroy” earth or affect humans?
Affecting humans in a way we do not like is not necessarily “bad” for the planet is it? Think about it…
The post continues to state
Based on Thoreau’s notes and research by botanists in the area, Davis and other scientists figure that about 30 percent of the plant species Thoreau saw are locally extinct and a further 30 percent are in scarce supply, crowded out by southern invaders that can now thrive in New England.
Have these species that are described as “extinct” or “in scarce supply” just moved north and are no longer “in the area?” If so, they aren’t extinct or in scarce supply… Those statements would be misleading. Could we have created a shift in the climate’s temperatures so that the plants migrated? Sure.
However, to say that such migration is “bad” is putting a human value on a change in temperatures. Just as it may limit our snowboarding in California, it may allow other species to flourish or create opportunities for other living creatures–even if we don’t value those living creatures…
If affecting the environment for our benefit is “bad,” why is maintaining the environment in a stable range that is below global temperatures on a global scale a “good” thing just because we like it like this or expect it to be this way?
Try to remember geologic time rather than temperatures over the past 4,000 years…
Evolution fits in how?
When global temperatures and conditions change, living creatures die, cope, or evolve. Just because we say rising temperatures are “bad” for us because we will lose homes along the coast, lose snow sports in many areas, and lose other “valuable” things does not mean that such rising temperatures are bad for the Earth or outside of the normal. Remember, these events are when Evolution tends to jump into overdrive…
Do a Yahoo, Google, or Bing search for what happened about 65 million years ago…
Anyone who knows anything about Flash knows that it’s buggy, bloated crap. The three major things that use Flash are Video, Advertising and games. Flash video is very quickly being replaced by HTML5, ad’s that move or start playing movies automatically or dramatically slow a page load will not be missed by anyone and as for games… Flash is not touch-screen supported on ANY platform! (And the last I saw, the iPhone is not lacking in the game department!) Flash is a proprietary disruptive resource hog that interferes with Apple’s consistent, simple, high quality user experience across all of its platforms. I applaud Apple for drawing a line in the sand by not allowing a poor technology by “a lazy company” to ruin the #1 rated smartphone platform. Apple abandoned the floppy drive years before the PC did because it recognized it’s useful life was over. Apple is doing the same with Flash. In Jobs we trust.
I am not sure if the person commenting knows Flash or HTML5, but I haven’t heard whether HTML5 will make the user find codecs for each site that uses a different codec to encapsulate their video. Remember that in the past (prior to Flash)?
Flash handles all that back end “traffic” so that the user just gets the service (streaming video, games, etc.). Saying HTML5 will replace Flash because it can stream video or play games is like saying pdf will be replaced by a text editor…
Where this is going…
Apple’s iPod and iPhone are used by many non-techies. These people have used a device like a calculator–just doing what they want for a specific purpose. iPods play content (music, video, etc.), iPhone (smartphone, even though network phone might be more appropriate), …
By introducing all of these non-techies to tech, Apple is educating them and making them, essentially, techies-or many will be in the future.
Why this is important…
Back in 2005 and 2006, I commented that Apple’s move to x86 hardware was going to be easy and fine for the user (the developers were screaming, but the user wasn’t going to care…).
Adam has a post on Uneasy Silence stating
I was working at an Apple reseller when the Intel switch was announced at WWDC 2005 and distinctly remember one of our employees in tears over the announcement and vowed to not sell Intel Macs when they began shipping. The same guy quit the day the iMac and Macbook Pro began shipping in January of 2006. I’m not telling this story for everyone’s amusement because there were thousands of Mac fans with the same feelings and anguish towards our favorite company. In fact, I know many fanboys that personally switched to Linux with AMD chips or bought the last Quad 2.5Ghz G5 PowerMac and stated it would be their last Macintosh computer.
I was more optimistic about the news and decided to simply wait until revision two of the Intel Macs. I have and am now the proud owner of a Core2Duo Macbook and after using this machine for a week; I can see how great this has been for Apple.
. . .
Kudos for his patient outlook. I stated, on 8 June 2005, that the move was good and that nobody should care (yes, you have to scroll down to the post because I did it all by hand back then…).
People don’t really care what is under the hood any more. Intel and AMD know this now. Although users are more hardware-independent, some do decide to become software independent as well. Microsoft, Apple, Linux Distributions (Red Hat, SUSE, Ubuntu, Debian, etc.), Linux GUI developers (KDE, Gnome, etc.) should be taking notes.
Counsel
I still don’t think most techies care what is the hardware so long as the software lets them do what they want…
What Apple doesn’t want — and as we see now, is not going to allow — is for anyone other than Apple to define the framework for native iPhone apps. What Apple is saying here is, if you’re going to write a native iPhone app, then you need to target our platform; if you want to do something else, then target the iPhone with an optimized web app. I.e., the iPhone OS supports two software platforms: Cocoa Touch and the web. Apple isn’t going to let anyone else build a meta-platform on top of Cocoa Touch.
I agree. Well, I agree until the userbase revolts and Apple is forced to alter its plans. If Apple is good at anything, it is responding to change in conditions. Just think back to the switch from PowerPC CPUs to those of the x86 design…
Joel Spolsky has an article that talks about why corporations want to do what Apple is doing. In his article, Joel states
Headline: Sun Develops Java; New “Bytecode” System Means Write Once, Run Anywhere.
The bytecode idea is not new — programmers have always tried to make their code run on as many machines as possible. (That’s how you commoditize your complement). For years Microsoft had its own p-code compiler and portable windowing layer which let Excel run on Mac, Windows, and OS/2, and on Motorola, Intel, Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC chips. Quark has a layer which runs Macintosh code on Windows. The C programming language is best described as a hardware-independent assembler language. It’s not a new idea to software developers.
If you can run your software anywhere, that makes hardware more of a commodity. As hardware prices go down, the market expands, driving more demand for software (and leaving customers with extra money to spend on software which can now be more expensive.)
Sun’s enthusiasm for WORA is, um, strange, because Sun is a hardware company. Making hardware a commodity is the last thing they want to do.
Oooooooooooooooooooooops!
Sun is the loose cannon of the computer industry. Unable to see past their raging fear and loathing of Microsoft, they adopt strategies based on anger rather than self-interest. Sun’s two strategies are (a) make software a commodity by promoting and developing free software (Star Office, Linux, Apache, Gnome, etc), and (b) make hardware a commodity by promoting Java, with its bytecode architecture and WORA. OK, Sun, pop quiz: when the music stops, where are you going to sit down? Without proprietary advantages in hardware or software, you’re going to have to take the commodity price, which barely covers the cost of cheap factories in Guadalajara, not your cushy offices in Silicon Valley.
“But Joel!” Jared says. “Sun is trying to commoditize the operating system, like Transmeta, not the hardware.” Maybe, but the fact that Java bytecode also commoditizes the hardware is some pretty significant collateral damage to sustain.
An important thing you notice from all these examples is that it’s easy for software to commoditize hardware (you just write a little hardware abstraction layer, like Windows NT’s HAL, which is a tiny piece of code), but it’s incredibly hard for hardware to commoditize software. Software is not interchangable, as the StarOffice marketing team is learning. Even when the price is zero, the cost of switching from Microsoft Office is non-zero. Until the switching cost becomes zero, desktop office software is not truly a commodity. And even the smallest differences can make two software packages a pain to switch between. Despite the fact that Mozilla has all the features I want and I’d love to use it if only to avoid the whack-a-mole pop-up-ad game, I’m too used to hitting Alt+D to go to the address bar. So sue me. One tiny difference and you lose your commodity status. But I’ve pulled hard drives out of IBM computers and slammed them into Dell computers and, boom, the system comes up perfectly and runs as if it were still in the old computer.
Joel’s article is great. Go read the economics of it all. However, I want to point out one bit…
Sun’s enthusiasm for WORA is, um, strange, because Sun is a hardware company. Making hardware a commodity is the last thing they want to do.
Oooooooooooooooooooooops!
Sun is the loose cannon of the computer industry. Unable to see past their raging fear and loathing of Microsoft, they adopt strategies based on anger rather than self-interest. Sun’s two strategies are (a) make software a commodity by promoting and developing free software (Star Office, Linux, Apache, Gnome, etc), and (b) make hardware a commodity by promoting Java, with its bytecode architecture and WORA. OK, Sun, pop quiz: when the music stops, where are you going to sit down? Without proprietary advantages in hardware or software, you’re going to have to take the commodity price, which barely
This is exactly why Apple is fighting to keep the hardware from becoming a commodity. One of the easiest ways to do so is to make the device/hardware appear to be what makes the experience. If you can make the iDevice THAT different and still great to use, then you have preserved your hardware from becoming a commodity. Since OS/X is limited to Apple hardware, you preserve both the hardware sales and the software sales… Nicely thought…
Except…
Apple already moved from the PowerPC CPU to the x86 line of processors. Doesn’t that mean that the hardware is a commodity because the software does not rely on the hardware to provide the particular service. Yes, I do know only Apple sells Apple hardware/software, but work with me here…
Back to educating the masses…
Many of those iDevice users are becoming techies. When they become techies, they too may want more from their device and wonder why Apple isn’t helping them over helping Apple. Many users won’t care–techies or not.
However, Apple could be limiting their success unless they provide more “openness” since people will move for the “software.” But wait, you say… Apple apps only run on apple hardware. Yes, and that is a brilliant catch isn’t it?
However, what happens when other OSes or other devices can provide the exact/similar experience without the IDevice? What stops people form leaving the iDevice?
One reason could be investment in the iDevice software…
This is why I have written that Apple is hoping that the users will want to retain their investment instead of having to “start over” upon buying a new smartphone…
Apple is working to make hardware not be a commodity. However, Apple has a plan if hardware is a commodity. Namely, Apple is the only person selling the software (iPhone OS). If the services become available across OSes, Apple is hoping you will want to retain the investment in the apps…
Apple Fans…
You are welcome to like their products, continue to use their products, and not care about any of the issues I have discussed. What is “right” for me may not be “right” for you. I accept that.
However, I need you guys to stop railing against Adobe by asking “Why doesn’t adobe start using html5, an open standard?” This question appears in more comments than I care to count!
Let me explain. No, there is too much, let me sum up…
I have to ask those that ask…
Why are they using Apple and not Android (or FreeBSD or Linux on the PC) then? Why not an “open standard?”
I generally get silence, a smile (gotcha!), or more rants about how Apple is “the savior.”
Summary
What have we learned?
Apple will fight to keep the hardware from becoming a commodity;
Apple will fight to keep the OS and software tied to Apple hardware;
Apple will continue to “update” the iDevices to keep their users coming back for more;
Educated users will continue to demand more from Apple;
Apple will sell as many apps as they can in case they can’t stop the hardware from becoming the commodity;
None of this should surprise anyone who has been around since the Apple //… Think about it. Really.
The problem I have is that Apple proved that hardware is the commodity when they moved to x86… It wasn’t about the hardware. Yet, they expect us not to remember and to accept that now, hardware isn’t a commodity…
I don’t get that Apple logic. I bet Steve doesn’t either, but he is trying to sell it. He is having lots of luck too.
However, he lost me…
The 1st generation iPhone will join my Apple //e and my Mack+ in the garage when I upgrade to my next phone…. I wonder how many will follow as they become more educated (i.e., techy) due to the use of those iDevices?
I have mentioned before that Apple uses the iPad, iPod, and iPhone to further their profits. Not so surprising since Apple is a corporation out to make money.
However, Apple is acting in a manner that makes Apple look good in the public’s eye while making third-party developers look “bad.”
“Let me explain… No, there is too much, let me sum up…”
Marco Arment, developer of the popular Instapaper apps, points out in a post on his blog that iBooks makes use of a significant number of undocumented functions, and that a third-party developer’s inability to do the same makes “all third-party reading-related apps second-class citizens.” iBooks’s ability to let you adjust the brightness of the screen inside the app—without having to jump to the iPad’s Settings application—is an example of functionality not available to third-party programmers.
Two potential problems arise from this disparity: first, as Arment points out, Apple’s own apps create expectations that diminish the production value of third-party software. Since normal users are not well-acquainted with the subtleties of programming, it’s difficult to explain that an app’s inability to match the functionality provided by its Apple’s counterparts is not due to a lack of ability or interest on the developer’s part, but, rather, to the legalities of participating in the App Store. One could also argue that private frameworks give Apple an unfair advantage, especially as its interests expand from the core device functionality into other areas—as with the recent introduction of iBooks.
Most non-tech people say so what? I get what I want, and the third party developers can do other things…
Technically inclined folk may disagree… Why should I, a developer, develop for a device if the Company whose device I am developing for is making my apps appear inferior to their own–not because I do not code as well but because I am prevented from using their function calls if I want them to approve my app…?
If Apple continues, those developers may leave Apple on principle. Most may stay for the cash, but I hope everyone, techy and average citizen, realizes that Apple isn’t caring so much for your desires as Apple is caring for Apple. Sounds like insurance companies, Wall-street types, and politicians–all groups I want to distance myself from at this point in my life.
It is so bad, I bet lawyer jokes are getting a backseat to Apple jokes.
I also hear a lot of people whining about this, and this article just makes the circle of whining increase. People that are not engineers, and not informed read this article and spite Apple without fully understanding what Apple is providing.
Apple is the provider, they are providing a stable, reliable environment for applications to thrive on, and a platform that simplifies and facilitates developer to end user sales. As mentioned briefly in this article and by the commenter above, dreyfus, private frameworks are a necessity, the only way to test them is give them some use.
Apple does this by publishing their own applications using these private frameworks.
The bottom line is that Apple wants to (try) to keep the experience for developers and end-users the same, which is a good, clean, reliable experience with all the applications, with the SDK, and guaranteeing forward compatibility. The only way they can do that, is the path they have chosen.
Let me put this in a way that makes more sense to more people… why in this article are you not complaining about Apple’s “Phone” application using private frameworks? Or their Settings app? Well, you might say that it’s because those aren’t on the “appstore” and you would be right, but the bottom line is that Apple is the provider, they need to provide a high quality of service in their platform, their OS, their SDK, their Applications, and to end users. Use an Android for a month and you’ll appreciate that much more about what Apple has done.
Not surprising, I disagree…
I disagree both about the suggestion that “educated” and “intelligent” people already agree with Apple’s practice and about there not being any logic or validity to the comments being made by some, even if the few.
Lets start with Logic… Or the lack of logic…
The suggested argument is that “Apple wants to (try) to keep the experience for developers and end-users the same…..”
Why does that prevent the use of private function calls, private frameworks, or making those private functions/frameworks public? Nobody is arguing that those “non-public” functions/frameworks are unreliable or not capable of being understood by developers… Remember, Apple still has to approve the app, and Apple could deny approval for apps that did not function or that were “confusing.”
There are plenty of applications available for computer OSes that allow users to control settings without using the OS-providers apps while using their underlying programming (altering settings without opening the OS control panel in Windows for example…). This is done in OS/X as well.
People are complaining about Apple not allowing others to use those “private functions/frameworks” that could allow another dialer. Again, if Apple is approving everything, they would control whether the replacement application for the dialer was functional… Rather, Apple wants a unified appearance at the expense of the developer (and some of us technically-inclined and otherwise intelligent users/programmers).
United States v. Microsoft was a set of consolidated civil actions filed against Microsoft Corporation pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 U.S. states. Joel I. Klein was the lead prosecutor. The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system sales and web browser sales. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft’s victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this unfairly restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft’s conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturer (OEMs), and Microsoft’s intent in its course of conduct.
According to the posts, it doesn’t appear as if Apple manipulated APIs to favor its software… Smart attorneys find loopholes. People commenting on the issue appear to state that Apple simply did not give developers access to “private frameworks.” The technicality makes no difference to some, but it may make a difference to lawyers.
Summary
I am not making any legal allegations against Apple or their practices, but I, personally, don’t like or approve of their practice. Your mileage, and opinion, may differ. I accept “many” folk will love what Apple does and suggest that they like what Apple does–I don’t mind that actually. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
However, saying people who disagree with Apple (or the majority of the population even–as in politics) over a ’subjective’ issue are “wrong” or “not educated” (or smart) does confound the intellect …
Bebo.com, an on-line social networking community, is up for sale by AOL. I like “less popular” sites, so I decided to join…
I got to the sign-up page, and I get
The email address ********@gmail.com has not been recognized. Please check and try again.
Not recognize a gmail e-mail account? No wonder you have trouble with membership. Nobody wants SPAM to their personal mailbox, and many companies have policies to stop social network e-mails from hitting their servers.
I sent bebo.com an e-mail asking them if they knew that their service was not accepting gmail e-mail accounts for new signups. I’ll let you know what I hear.
Are you a bebo.com member? Do you use a gmail e-mail account? Did you have any problems? Did you sign up with that e-mail address or did you add it after you had joined?
Comments on different sites abound, but I don’t think the iPad will be as successful as all the hype.
Why?
Here is a comment from someone who went to stand in line to buy one:
“Hated it…sold it on eBay.”
When asked if he was serious, he replied:
“Seriously….I have an iMac, and an iPhone….it was in between…it’s cool, but didn’t do anything new for me personally. Another friend of mine took his back for the same reason. Maybe the 3G version will make it better. ”
I’m not sure that the 3G version will make the iPad any more desireable unless you are with Verizon or Sprint (or another carrier) that allows tethering.
The cost of another data connection might make the average user not so interested.
How do you feel? Love the iPad or do you wish it returned?
Apple has released the iPad. If you actually don’t know or aren’t sick of all the posts, you are in the minority…
What are the problems with the iPad?
Charging from power plug-in is the only efficient way;
Fragile-not as tough as the iPod or iPhone;
Apps are more expensive;
No Flash;
Not open–not open-source software, but open to put your own stuff on there…;
why go on?
Flash isn’t necessary! Or so I hear. Many say that HTML5 will solve the streaming video / Flash debate.
No it won’t
You see, Adobe’s strength is that it understands that the output we view may be affected by different monitors, printers, etc… Adobe’s products make all that irrelevant. PDF documents look the same across platforms (OS/X, Windows, Linux, …) and software (Office, OpenOffice, Wordperfect, …).
Flash isn’t just streaming video–although many think it is limited to that function. Flash provides many other benefits like not having to worry if you have the right codec for the video or audio. What codec you ask?
Right… You see, Flash takes care of all of that for you. The user has Flash and does not have to worry if the video was encoded with H264, mpeg, mov, avi, …. The end user does not have to worry about codecs, resolutions, other software, etc. It is a complete platform for the delivery of ’stuff.’
If you think Flash = streaming video, please go here and read…
It is more complex than that…
Do you program at all?
If you program a little, you may want to put some of your programs on your mobile device. However, you would have to submit your program to Apple for their verification/approval if you want to put it on your iPhone/iPad/iPod. Why? To control the user experience?
Sure. For the non-tech / average USA citizen, that is fine. Why not allow those of us “with the know,” to do more? You see, I will not submit my stuff for Apple to approve or reject. Why should I? I would have to pay to have it approved when I only want to use it myself? What if I don’t want it released?
It is MY device, isn’t it? To me, this is like Apple telling me they have to approve those I add to my contact list. I understand that MOST users don’t feel the same way, but it is an issue for me.
Summary
Don’t let Apple ouster Flash to put in H264–that it controls. Why is one better than the other? Flash does a little more than just encode video-streaming or otherwise.
Look past the shiny lights and tech. Like people, tech shouldn’t be judged by popularity or exterior appearances.
We have talked about Engadget’s problems over the last few days, and I was not surprised to see an inboxing/review of the iPad within 2 hours of the iPad being sold.
Yet, engadget has yet to even post an inboxing or basic review of the JooJoo-an iPad oponent, if you will. Either Engadget gets add dollars from Apple and is scared of losing those revenues, or they, in my opinion, are biased in their reporting so much that they shut off comments and do not review a piece if tech without do much as an explanation when there is/was serious requests for the JooJoo review.
You see, Engadget stated they needed time with a device to give it a good/ serious review. Of course though, no such time requirement was needed to post a review of the iPad. I don’t mind you love of all things Apple, but, damn, don’t lie to me or lack reason in your statements and expect me to accept your…I’d have to call it a false excuse.
Now I’m off to find another tech news site as I refuse to go to a site that doesn’t provide even coverage and that dies not use logic in talking to the reader.
Call me idealistic, but doesn’t it bother you at all?
Pocosin is a Native American word meaning a "swamp on a hill." "Poco" and "sin" are two Spanish words meaning "little" and "without." The site offers my perspectives on news, technology, legal issues, politics, and social issues.
Contact
Subscribe
May 5, 2010 
No Comments 
Clean Water Act, CWA, environment, water
