What is missed in this article is that programmers do their best work in a language they are familier with, and with tools they are familier with. The programmers who want to be able to develop using FLASH probably want to because they feel this is the best language and tools for them to develop what they want.
I know a dozen or so programming and scripting languages but I'm most comfortable coding in PERL and PHP. If I'm trying to develop a product I know I'd want to use my strongest coding skills... and I certainly wouldn't want to learn another programming language.
There is no technical reason why FLASH isn't allowed on the IPhone. Instead it is a marketting decision.. one in a long trend of marketting decisions for companies to keep control of hardware even after they have sold it. I rank Apples decision to actively block FLASH right up their with Sony's decision to remove the Other OS functionality from existing Playstation 3's.
Actually, this is just a case of the meaning of a word migrating over time, sort of like how Kleenex came to mean any nose tissue. In this case it started out when a company would place an ad with Google, and then have a program (or hire someone) to sit and click on their ads all day long. This was for money and was called Click Fraud. A program which did this was then called a Click Fraud program... because it generated fraudulent clicks. Now they seem to be taking the name from the program and applying it to what you are doing. Since you are using a Click Fraud style program you are obviously performing a click fraud action.
You know, it's funny. A while back there was an outcry about manufacturers who decided that installing linux nullified your warrenty. This incident makes me wonder if maybe they have a point? After all... they have likely tested the hardware for long term windows reliability. They probably haven't tested their hardware for long term Linux reliability (through all the various linux types and settings.)
That said, they could probably still support their warrenty on things they know won't be affected by operating systems, like the hinge of the laptops screen.
And I will back your right to buy a car that doesn't have OnStar. Currently, some Chevrolet's don't have OnStar, though the article indicates that they will be expanding which lines have them.. probably due to demand. Those cars that due come with it you have to pay extra to have it removed.. same as you would a radio you didn't want or if you didn't want electronic door locks or if you didn't want a rear seat. Thats the joy of standardized features that lower the manufacturing costs of the car. You only build a few different ways.
However it is certainly not a government/constitutional issue. This is a marketplace issue. Will enough people pay for a car with OnStar to support the company that makes/uses it. So far it would seem so since OnStar is a major selling point for a lot of people.
Ok folks, there is no need to go off into paranoia land. Yes, this is the home of the free where personal choice matters. I own a chevy, I pay for onstar, I want my service. Those are my choices on where I am spending my money. I want this option and I'm willing to pay a premium for it.
If you don't want this, guess what, you don't have to have it. Even on a brand spanking new chevy you can pay someone to remove the Onstar gear. It's your car, you can do anything you want with it. If you want a new stereo, you can get it, if you want new rims, pay for them, if you dont' want onstar then by a different car or have it removed, it's your choice.
Certainly I can understand preventing the government from mandating such devices, but they should be allowed for those people who want them.. and I'm one who wants it. If I get in an accident, I want someone to send an ambulence right away. I like getting monthly e-mails on how my car is doing. I like being able to quickly get in touch with someone if I'm in trouble.
Yes, this means that a measure that can locate a thief CAN be used to locate me.. currently an officer would need a warrent for that information, but there is no technical reason why it can't be done. You know what? I'm ok with that. If I know the cops are after me I have LOTS of choices for transportation that are not tracked.
Which comes to my main point. This is a company offering a service.. and it's one you need to pay for. This is not the government instituting this policy. If I want to have my car tracked, have my dog tracked, or even have my own body lojacked that should be just as much my right as NOT having these things. Right now it's a market choice.. and thats how it should be.
Boojum the brown bunny
When the OS you feel comfortable with results in my inbox filled with spam from zombied machines, my firewall and server log files are filled with lame Windows attacks on my non-Windows machines, or the accessibility of a web site or portion of the internet becomes pathetically slow as one of those bot nets goes on a rampage, your choice of OS sucks ass.
If your not connected to the internet then choose what ever crappy OS you want, if your going to be part of a public network, consider how your choice will affect others on that public network.
You know what? My windows computers are not zombied machines, have no viruses, and don't go on rampages. Since your condemning these things as the fault of the OS you seem to be blaming my machines. Interesting.
I suppose this is on the same level as blaming the people who write DVDRipping software instead of the people who use it to burn off and sell hundreds of movies, or blaming people who write Filesharing software and not the people who distribute copyrighted material. You seem to be making the same argument that the RIAA and MPAA are making, that it is the developers fault when something is used for an illegal purpose and not the users.
Sure, Windows could be made safer... some of the things you could do would decrease ease of use for the customer, but some wouldn't change the users exerience. But I don't think you can blame the rash of zombie/botnets/spam on the OS. I think the blame lays with the programmers who spend there time writing such software.
So, if AI's and robots get rights, does that also mean they are subject to punishment? If a robot injures a person, can it be arrested for battery? How about if it views child pornography, even if it doesn't have the capacity to enjoy it? Remember, laws in the united states are supposed to be objective. If it is decided that AI's have conciousness and are thus deserving of protection, doesn't that also mean they very likely have volition?
I've noticed a rather knee-jerk reaction here on SlashDot when the world censorship is used. Censoring is the supressing or deletion of something considered objectionable, as simple as that. It can mean using a spam blocker (because you object to spam) or a P2P blocker (because you object to file sharing) or any of a number of things.
In the case of the college, one presumes there are books on the college and sources of information OTHER than the internet. The internet is just one tool among many for students to use. The college is paying for the internet connection and seems to have determined what sort of uses they want to put it to. Remember, College is not about unlimitted learning, it's about learning the information the school is trying to teach you so you can pass and continue in your chosen field.
Yes, they could have chosen to use packet shaping, bandwidth throttling, and a number of other methods to achieve their goals.. but it is in these very forums where people discuss ways to get around packet shaping and bandwidth throttling. Everything from modifying your modem hardware to encrypting and port shifting has been brought up for ways around these very methods of preventing use (or abuse) of a network.
Personally, I am a firm believer that NO network should be fully open. This includes home networks as well as college campusses. The umpteenth time some user contracts a virus by going to someplace or doing something they shouldn't do on the internet and then infects every single other computer on the same network is enough to drive any IT professional insane.
Does blocking, packet shaping, filtering, firewalling, etc.., stop everything? Of course not. But if it can reduce the work you have to do on a network down to a manageable level I think it's worth it.
I do think reducing the discussion of Colleges and Universities filtering access to the internet down to "Censorship bad" is doing a disservice to all the myriad of reasons, on both sides, that the topic has to offer.
Slashdot Mirror
What is missed in this article is that programmers do their best work in a language they are familier with, and with tools they are familier with. The programmers who want to be able to develop using FLASH probably want to because they feel this is the best language and tools for them to develop what they want.
I know a dozen or so programming and scripting languages but I'm most comfortable coding in PERL and PHP. If I'm trying to develop a product I know I'd want to use my strongest coding skills... and I certainly wouldn't want to learn another programming language.
There is no technical reason why FLASH isn't allowed on the IPhone. Instead it is a marketting decision.. one in a long trend of marketting decisions for companies to keep control of hardware even after they have sold it. I rank Apples decision to actively block FLASH right up their with Sony's decision to remove the Other OS functionality from existing Playstation 3's.
Boojum the brown bunny
Actually, this is just a case of the meaning of a word migrating over time, sort of like how Kleenex came to mean any nose tissue. In this case it started out when a company would place an ad with Google, and then have a program (or hire someone) to sit and click on their ads all day long. This was for money and was called Click Fraud. A program which did this was then called a Click Fraud program... because it generated fraudulent clicks. Now they seem to be taking the name from the program and applying it to what you are doing. Since you are using a Click Fraud style program you are obviously performing a click fraud action.
You know, it's funny. A while back there was an outcry about manufacturers who decided that installing linux nullified your warrenty. This incident makes me wonder if maybe they have a point? After all... they have likely tested the hardware for long term windows reliability. They probably haven't tested their hardware for long term Linux reliability (through all the various linux types and settings.)
That said, they could probably still support their warrenty on things they know won't be affected by operating systems, like the hinge of the laptops screen.
Boojum the brown bunny
And I will back your right to buy a car that doesn't have OnStar. Currently, some Chevrolet's don't have OnStar, though the article indicates that they will be expanding which lines have them.. probably due to demand. Those cars that due come with it you have to pay extra to have it removed.. same as you would a radio you didn't want or if you didn't want electronic door locks or if you didn't want a rear seat. Thats the joy of standardized features that lower the manufacturing costs of the car. You only build a few different ways. However it is certainly not a government/constitutional issue. This is a marketplace issue. Will enough people pay for a car with OnStar to support the company that makes/uses it. So far it would seem so since OnStar is a major selling point for a lot of people.
Ok folks, there is no need to go off into paranoia land. Yes, this is the home of the free where personal choice matters. I own a chevy, I pay for onstar, I want my service. Those are my choices on where I am spending my money. I want this option and I'm willing to pay a premium for it. If you don't want this, guess what, you don't have to have it. Even on a brand spanking new chevy you can pay someone to remove the Onstar gear. It's your car, you can do anything you want with it. If you want a new stereo, you can get it, if you want new rims, pay for them, if you dont' want onstar then by a different car or have it removed, it's your choice. Certainly I can understand preventing the government from mandating such devices, but they should be allowed for those people who want them.. and I'm one who wants it. If I get in an accident, I want someone to send an ambulence right away. I like getting monthly e-mails on how my car is doing. I like being able to quickly get in touch with someone if I'm in trouble. Yes, this means that a measure that can locate a thief CAN be used to locate me.. currently an officer would need a warrent for that information, but there is no technical reason why it can't be done. You know what? I'm ok with that. If I know the cops are after me I have LOTS of choices for transportation that are not tracked. Which comes to my main point. This is a company offering a service.. and it's one you need to pay for. This is not the government instituting this policy. If I want to have my car tracked, have my dog tracked, or even have my own body lojacked that should be just as much my right as NOT having these things. Right now it's a market choice.. and thats how it should be. Boojum the brown bunny
You know what? My windows computers are not zombied machines, have no viruses, and don't go on rampages. Since your condemning these things as the fault of the OS you seem to be blaming my machines. Interesting.
I suppose this is on the same level as blaming the people who write DVDRipping software instead of the people who use it to burn off and sell hundreds of movies, or blaming people who write Filesharing software and not the people who distribute copyrighted material. You seem to be making the same argument that the RIAA and MPAA are making, that it is the developers fault when something is used for an illegal purpose and not the users.
Sure, Windows could be made safer... some of the things you could do would decrease ease of use for the customer, but some wouldn't change the users exerience. But I don't think you can blame the rash of zombie/botnets/spam on the OS. I think the blame lays with the programmers who spend there time writing such software.
Boojum the brown bunny
So, if AI's and robots get rights, does that also mean they are subject to punishment? If a robot injures a person, can it be arrested for battery? How about if it views child pornography, even if it doesn't have the capacity to enjoy it? Remember, laws in the united states are supposed to be objective. If it is decided that AI's have conciousness and are thus deserving of protection, doesn't that also mean they very likely have volition?
I've noticed a rather knee-jerk reaction here on SlashDot when the world censorship is used. Censoring is the supressing or deletion of something considered objectionable, as simple as that. It can mean using a spam blocker (because you object to spam) or a P2P blocker (because you object to file sharing) or any of a number of things.
In the case of the college, one presumes there are books on the college and sources of information OTHER than the internet. The internet is just one tool among many for students to use. The college is paying for the internet connection and seems to have determined what sort of uses they want to put it to. Remember, College is not about unlimitted learning, it's about learning the information the school is trying to teach you so you can pass and continue in your chosen field.
Yes, they could have chosen to use packet shaping, bandwidth throttling, and a number of other methods to achieve their goals.. but it is in these very forums where people discuss ways to get around packet shaping and bandwidth throttling. Everything from modifying your modem hardware to encrypting and port shifting has been brought up for ways around these very methods of preventing use (or abuse) of a network.
Personally, I am a firm believer that NO network should be fully open. This includes home networks as well as college campusses. The umpteenth time some user contracts a virus by going to someplace or doing something they shouldn't do on the internet and then infects every single other computer on the same network is enough to drive any IT professional insane.
Does blocking, packet shaping, filtering, firewalling, etc.., stop everything? Of course not. But if it can reduce the work you have to do on a network down to a manageable level I think it's worth it.
I do think reducing the discussion of Colleges and Universities filtering access to the internet down to "Censorship bad" is doing a disservice to all the myriad of reasons, on both sides, that the topic has to offer.
Boojum