I, myself am an Apple-nerd - I've been with Apple ever since the Newton came out. I see in the case of OS manufactures (e.g. Apple, Microsoft, Canonical, etc), that moving towards a unified mobile platform is crucial when we all seem to live more mobile based than desk based. It seems to be the way the markets are shifting. Just as Apple has shown that they will (read: might) not be bringing people back for another OSX release in 11.x, and moving towards a more iOS-based system, I think it's safe to assume that Microsoft is following the same trend. In the case of the Xbox 360, the box-like interface has proven somewhat popular. Although users have been forced to play along with the Xbox version, the Windows 7 Phone has been a big success for Microsoft.
I'm not a fan of this mobile transition, because it means that many of the desktop experiences I have may not exist on mobile platforms for a while. However, on the flip side, the mobile/desktop similarities and integration might prove worthy to the mass majority of not-so-tech savvy users out there in the market.
I found that after a while of using Mac OSX 10.7.x on my MacBook Pro, that the only thing I needed was Logic Pro. So I stuck it on an old '09 Mac Pro and soon after installed Debian on my MacBook Pro.
Looking back, I can attest that this has been one of the best decisions, though tech-savvy-ness is required to get it working and working with it. I don't know why I didn't switch earlier.
If you're looking into a more smooth transition or fun-flavored OS, Ubuntu works a bit better.
I use a small pile of operating systems every day, including Ubuntu Studio, which is now on XFCE, as my garage "juke box". Your statement doesn't jive with my experience. Is there a great youtube video, list of metrics, or something that shows great XFCE usage habits or at least what they're measuring to claim success at?
I think this also feeds on the question of the recent article that was released showing that there is no new Mac or OSX team leader - maybe showing that the new version of OSX will be primarily iOS like. Do you think that Apple is shooting for a system where they control the rules on all platforms and the developers cough minions cough work within the setup realm of Apple?
It seems somewhat sinister, but after what they've done with the controlled iOS environment, I don't see any reason why 11.x won't be restrictive.
I do agree, in the case of the article. It think Apple is so powerful that they don't need to worry about being creative, because their role in the world defines innovative thinking.
I was going to say the most quirkily/avant garde-like creative people are more successful than those who think inside the box. Though that may just be an opinion.
Could this constitute the idea of first degree inception? Getting someone to believe a false, or artificial idea (maybe similar to that of when you upload a custom payload), to someone's mind and using that artificially foreign data to trick the victim into believing something. I could see how this could be an ethical issue or delema. However, the usage of implementing artificial concepts to get the user to regurgitate information that was not there or trigger remembering information that they might have forgotten brings up the idea of interrogation. On the flip side it could be used to filter information in patients who experienced trauma and were involved in a crime. Maybe this might be the first step in an alternative to hacking the mind - without electronics, but with memories. Of course it must be voluntary or implemented in an unnoticeable manner.
Is mars established as a credible planet/nation zone, or does it count as space (international)? Its an interesting perspective that the "zone" of mars could be a place of legal jurisdiction. But it seems that space is a free for all "zone", so maybe your lawsuit would be void?
According to the 1967 U.N. Outer Space Treaty, "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. However, the State that launches a space object retains jurisdiction and control over that object. The State is also liable for damages caused by their space object and must avoid contaminating space and celestial bodies." (from Wikipedia)
So any crimes on Mars would probably fall under the jurisdiction of the country who launched the mission. Enforcement on the other hand might be tricky.
Interesting. I would imagine because of the vast majority of things that can come into contact with the vessel (ranging from a toothpick to an asteroid) could cause any amount of damage and there would be no way to retrieve the vessel for evidence.
I believe warpspeed meant damages caused to the celestial body BY the vessel, not vice versa. Basically they don't want you littering and damaging whatever planet/moon/etc. you decide to visit.
Hmm. Perhaps if the crime were committed in "that object" that was was launched. But what if it's outside that object, on the surface? Or within an object that was constructed on the surface?
Laws and treaties are just words on paper. They can be changed. They can be ignored. They have in the past and it's reasonable to assume they will continue to be in the future. So, I wouldn't rule out having some existing nation declare sovereignty over some part of Mars or an asteroid. They will give whatever excuse they need to justify it. Businesses would have powerful private profit incentive to be able to claim rights to things, and to have the protection of a patron national government's military to back it up, like the US, China, etc. We can also expect silly unnecessary wars to be ginned up by propagandists working for those same private profit interests. History is littered with examples, and no reason to expect it won't happen again in the future.
