> You make it sound as if I have a right to the content other people produce.
Yeah, you do, we all do, once a work is performed/released it is in the public domain, that is what the term _means_ "in the domain of the public" Copyright is an abrogation of that basic right in limited circumstance and for limited time because the _default_ is and will always be public domain.
The purpose of Copyright is to make sure that works are produced because it recognizes the value they provide to our culture. Those works contribute to and inform our culture, they become a part of it much like we do. Copyright is nothing more than a tool to further the _base_ function of enriching our culture. The relationship between the work and or culture _is_ the most important part otherwise Copyright wouldn't exist.
State _funded_ TV with a charter for the betterment of the populous has set the standard for TV in this country that and (somewhat) mitigated the "race to the bottom" that is being run more rapidly in countries that don't have that stabilizing force.
The BBC should be compared with other media organisations when talking about openness not wings of government, apples and oranges.
It's a colloquialism. To receive live TV you must have a TV licence, buying a TV is orthogonal to this. If I own a computer and use BBC iplayer to watch live TV I also need a licence, the fact you have bought a physical TV or not is irreverent, the question is are you receiving live TV signals.
IMHO the BBC is a public funded body that functions as an independent news service by royal charter, it is not an organ of government and thus should not be subject for FOI requests just like any other news service
None, same way there are none for Android. including the malware included in the OP. If it doesn't propagate of it's own accord then it isn't a virus it's just a malicious app AKA malware.
The OP mentions that "website that is designed to push Loozfon on the user's device" this is currently impossible unless there is an explain that is currently un-discussed and if there was such a thing it would be _very_ important, if (as I suspect) this is just another download-this/manually-install-the-app/accept-all-the-permissions/become-screwed idiot-trap then it is hardly news. And BTW there are plenty of these types of app for a jailbroken iPhone
This is not like Win3.1 to Win95 this is like going from OSX to iOS We have a new interface paradigm that MS is pushing _hard_ that is _only_ available to apps that are graced with the MS app store "magic" To repeat, there are _system_ GUI API that you cannot write applications for nor link to without paying MS and getting their approval for an app. This is also the _only_ way to get your app onto Win8RT
I don't care that it looks different, (It is half assed but you get used to that) I care that it's screwing both hobbyist and indy developers.
Actually it's forced secure boot _by default_. On x86 hardware MS requires the ability to add keys or switch off secure boot, true, but they also require any PC that is Win8 certified to refuse to boot anything else _unless_ the user disables secure boot in the BIOS. It's all about barrier to entry,
I can't help but think that the difference here is between academic knowledge and vocational experience. Working in an industry gives you the latter but only _maybe_ the former.
For example, WRT fracking I'd like to see more judges with a background in academic geoscience _not_ ex oil-industry workers
Digging in the _kernel_ I.E. in existing open-source code to figure out the interface, and using a shim to intercept system calls This is using the binary blob as a black box, in no way has the driver been decompiled nor abused in any way.
This is the correct way to implement an open-source driver. I think you have a broken understanding of what's going on here.
Actually it is not just a right it's a natural law. Anything that is broadcast with the potential to be heard and/or seen is automatically in the public domain. That is the default! Some governments specifically added the grant of a limited monopoly on distribution of a work (copyright) "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" because the default was thought to not encourage progress sufficiently, this would not be needed without the recognition that the default is the public domain.
Now your legal or moral obligation to obey that grant is a highly relative issue, and as should be discussed, but the right to transfer knowledge and experience you have received is almost as basic as it comes, even if that happens to be a reproduction a performance.
A push button dialler has _more_ functionality than the older rotary dialler (at least additional items "#" and "*") The transition from rotary->push button is simply one of mechanical reimplementation, not of simplification. Now we have address books, how would people feel if you _only_ had address books, you couldn't add any new numbers you could only choose from the numbers that were somehow "blessed" by your tellco or phone manufacturer. That is a more accurate comparison to the iPodification of tech.
I'm all for UI's that hide complexity as long at they always allow you to express the full power of the system in question, even if they hide much of it by default. However that is rarely what these UIs do, generally they simply remove needed features.
I'm not going to be using my phone data and tablet data at the same time (to any great degree) so I see no reason why I should pay an additional £15 a month for a tablet data plan. Android tethering all the way, and I don't need to pay for another radio in my tablet, win-win.
Odd, I use Google reader on my Vega, it's first release was pretty poor but it really nice now. Additionally you don't check "pixel counts" on android you allocate assets depending on device categories
No it doesn't. iOS literally doubles the phone app pixels, it's a terrible way of doing things due to the fact that iOS was not built for resolution independence. Android have been allowing for variable screen sizes and dpi since 1.6. Android apps don't "re-scale" they simply conform to the available space (assuming they are written well)
Nonsense, iOS is almost identical between the iPad and the iPhone, your artificial separation of "mini-app" and "full-size app" makes no sense. The only difference is the layout of the UI nothing about the core of the app needs to change (assuming the API is flexible enough)
Sure there may be apps that are fundamentally impossible to build using a small screen. But mostly the formula is "two panes, one for navigation the other for content" rather than "one screen leading to another" That is easy to do on Android even without honeycomb.
It does, and it provides resource management so you can provide separate assets for ldpi mdpi and hdpi. Most tablets are mdpi (~160 dpi) the nexus one is hdpi. The g1 was mdpi.
Developers can fail to handle this nicely but most of the "good" apps handle dpi just fine.
How would a firewall help in the slightest? This is http traffic from an app that has already been approved (buy the user on install) as having full internet access. All you could do with a firewall is pop up a message on the first use saying something like: "Oh I know you already said this app could access the internet but it looks like it actually is. Are you _sure_ this is ok?" Not that I don't think that Android permissions can improved but firewalls are _hard_ to do in a protective and useful way
Right, the only way to make money as a talented person is to ensure that corporate music is screwing _so many_ other artists that they have enough left over cash to throw at someone they consider a "50/50" or less bet?
That song sound like its about a shitty industry that has been shitty for 40+ years, the notion that copyright infringement is what has made it shitty is laughable.
BTW, its a great song and she has a great voice, I'll see if I can buy some of her work as long as I can get it straight from her and not through a label.
Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation
on
The Case For Oracle
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Which is why Google _don't_ call it a java platform. It's dalvik, it runs dalvik bytecode on a dalvik VM. You can write in any high level language you like as long as you have a compiler that results in dalvik bytecode.
As a convenience, Google provide a java->dalvik bytecode compiler, which is nice of them, but they don't ship a JVM nor a java system.
1) wait for 2.2 2) buy "Pdanet" from the market 3) Root your device and void your warranty 4) Write an app yourself
On the iphone you can
1) Jailbreak your phone remembering apple claims this is illegal
_That_ is why android is more open.
Now _within_ the Andoid ecosystem there are more and less open phones (it's worse for you poor sods in the US, but that because telco's pay their way out of needed regulation) If you got a Nexus1 then rooting is available with google supported tools (you still void your software warranty though) if you get HTC branded phone it's harder and Moto are really pissy about that sort of thing.
A friend of mine said it best: "The iPhone encourages you to be a consumer Android encourages you to be a creator"
* Wireless and USB tethering. * CIFS mount, * Bluetooth HID keyboard demon (with some fiddling) * Extra 200+MB memory (Due to a kernel problem in the stock rom the N1 can only use half it's memory). * Use of the LED flash as a torch, ability to use coloured notification lights in the trackball * Ability to screenshot any app without using the SDK * 360deg screen rotation
Those are the things that I unlocked my N1's bootloader for
Theft: The act of depriving another... Theft of property:... of their property Theft of service:... of their time
Copyright Infringement _removes nothing_ is is simply a breach of the covenant of copyright that many governments have established, it was established, in part, because the rules of theft _made no sense_ when applied to a body of work that could be duplicated with minimal effort.
It is different and it is not theft/stealing/piracy in anything but inaccurate colloquial parlance.
That _does not_ mean you get free reign to ignore it the same way that speeding is also not theft, but it can still get you fined and/or get your licence removed _when proven in a court of law_
Slashdot Mirror
> You make it sound as if I have a right to the content other people produce.
Yeah, you do, we all do, once a work is performed/released it is in the public domain, that is what the term _means_ "in the domain of the public"
Copyright is an abrogation of that basic right in limited circumstance and for limited time because the _default_ is and will always be public domain.
The purpose of Copyright is to make sure that works are produced because it recognizes the value they provide to our culture. Those works contribute to and inform our culture, they become a part of it much like we do. Copyright is nothing more than a tool to further the _base_ function of enriching our culture. The relationship between the work and or culture _is_ the most important part otherwise Copyright wouldn't exist.
It's _all_ about culture.
I curious as to what you define a "real" multi-tasking, such that it needs mentioning in this case
Yes it is nice, having the BBC that is.
State _funded_ TV with a charter for the betterment of the populous has set the standard for TV in this country that and (somewhat) mitigated the "race to the bottom" that is being run more rapidly in countries that don't have that stabilizing force.
The BBC should be compared with other media organisations when talking about openness not wings of government, apples and oranges.
It's a colloquialism. To receive live TV you must have a TV licence, buying a TV is orthogonal to this. If I own a computer and use BBC iplayer to watch live TV I also need a licence, the fact you have bought a physical TV or not is irreverent, the question is are you receiving live TV signals.
IMHO the BBC is a public funded body that functions as an independent news service by royal charter, it is not an organ of government and thus should not be subject for FOI requests just like any other news service
None, same way there are none for Android. including the malware included in the OP. If it doesn't propagate of it's own accord then it isn't a virus it's just a malicious app AKA malware.
The OP mentions that "website that is designed to push Loozfon on the user's device" this is currently impossible unless there is an explain that is currently un-discussed and if there was such a thing it would be _very_ important, if (as I suspect) this is just another download-this/manually-install-the-app/accept-all-the-permissions/become-screwed idiot-trap then it is hardly news. And BTW there are plenty of these types of app for a jailbroken iPhone
This is not like Win3.1 to Win95 this is like going from OSX to iOS
We have a new interface paradigm that MS is pushing _hard_ that is _only_ available to apps that are graced with the MS app store "magic"
To repeat, there are _system_ GUI API that you cannot write applications for nor link to without paying MS and getting their approval for an app.
This is also the _only_ way to get your app onto Win8RT
I don't care that it looks different, (It is half assed but you get used to that) I care that it's screwing both hobbyist and indy developers.
Actually it's forced secure boot _by default_. On x86 hardware MS requires the ability to add keys or switch off secure boot, true, but they also require any PC that is Win8 certified to refuse to boot anything else _unless_ the user disables secure boot in the BIOS. It's all about barrier to entry,
I can't help but think that the difference here is between academic knowledge and vocational experience. Working in an industry gives you the latter but only _maybe_ the former.
For example, WRT fracking I'd like to see more judges with a background in academic geoscience _not_ ex oil-industry workers
Digging in the _kernel_ I.E. in existing open-source code to figure out the interface, and using a shim to intercept system calls This is using the binary blob as a black box, in no way has the driver been decompiled nor abused in any way.
This is the correct way to implement an open-source driver. I think you have a broken understanding of what's going on here.
Actually it is not just a right it's a natural law. Anything that is broadcast with the potential to be heard and/or seen is automatically in the public domain. That is the default! Some governments specifically added the grant of a limited monopoly on distribution of a work (copyright) "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" because the default was thought to not encourage progress sufficiently, this would not be needed without the recognition that the default is the public domain.
Now your legal or moral obligation to obey that grant is a highly relative issue, and as should be discussed, but the right to transfer knowledge and experience you have received is almost as basic as it comes, even if that happens to be a reproduction a performance.
A push button dialler has _more_ functionality than the older rotary dialler (at least additional items "#" and "*")
The transition from rotary->push button is simply one of mechanical reimplementation, not of simplification.
Now we have address books, how would people feel if you _only_ had address books, you couldn't add any new numbers you could only choose from the numbers that were somehow "blessed" by your tellco or phone manufacturer. That is a more accurate comparison to the iPodification of tech.
I'm all for UI's that hide complexity as long at they always allow you to express the full power of the system in question, even if they hide much of it by default. However that is rarely what these UIs do, generally they simply remove needed features.
I'm not going to be using my phone data and tablet data at the same time (to any great degree) so I see no reason why I should pay an additional £15 a month for a tablet data plan. Android tethering all the way, and I don't need to pay for another radio in my tablet, win-win.
Odd, I use Google reader on my Vega, it's first release was pretty poor but it really nice now.
Additionally you don't check "pixel counts" on android you allocate assets depending on device categories
http://developer.android.com/guide/practices/screens_support.html
No it doesn't. iOS literally doubles the phone app pixels, it's a terrible way of doing things due to the fact that iOS was not built for resolution independence. Android have been allowing for variable screen sizes and dpi since 1.6. Android apps don't "re-scale" they simply conform to the available space (assuming they are written well)
Nonsense, iOS is almost identical between the iPad and the iPhone, your artificial separation of "mini-app" and "full-size app" makes no sense. The only difference is the layout of the UI nothing about the core of the app needs to change (assuming the API is flexible enough)
Sure there may be apps that are fundamentally impossible to build using a small screen. But mostly the formula is "two panes, one for navigation the other for content" rather than "one screen leading to another" That is easy to do on Android even without honeycomb.
It does, and it provides resource management so you can provide separate assets for ldpi mdpi and hdpi. Most tablets are mdpi (~160 dpi) the nexus one is hdpi. The g1 was mdpi.
Developers can fail to handle this nicely but most of the "good" apps handle dpi just fine.
How would a firewall help in the slightest? This is http traffic from an app that has already been approved (buy the user on install) as having full internet access. All you could do with a firewall is pop up a message on the first use saying something like:
"Oh I know you already said this app could access the internet but it looks like it actually is. Are you _sure_ this is ok?"
Not that I don't think that Android permissions can improved but firewalls are _hard_ to do in a protective and useful way
Right, the only way to make money as a talented person is to ensure that corporate music is screwing _so many_ other artists that they have enough left over cash to throw at someone they consider a "50/50" or less bet?
That song sound like its about a shitty industry that has been shitty for 40+ years, the notion that copyright infringement is what has made it shitty is laughable.
BTW, its a great song and she has a great voice, I'll see if I can buy some of her work as long as I can get it straight from her and not through a label.
Which is why Google _don't_ call it a java platform. It's dalvik, it runs dalvik bytecode on a dalvik VM. You can write in any high level language you like as long as you have a compiler that results in dalvik bytecode.
As a convenience, Google provide a java->dalvik bytecode compiler, which is nice of them, but they don't ship a JVM nor a java system.
Android 2.2 has tethering built in so, you can:
1) wait for 2.2
2) buy "Pdanet" from the market
3) Root your device and void your warranty
4) Write an app yourself
On the iphone you can
1) Jailbreak your phone remembering apple claims this is illegal
_That_ is why android is more open.
Now _within_ the Andoid ecosystem there are more and less open phones (it's worse for you poor sods in the US, but that because telco's pay their way out of needed regulation)
If you got a Nexus1 then rooting is available with google supported tools (you still void your software warranty though) if you get HTC branded phone it's harder and Moto are really pissy about that sort of thing.
A friend of mine said it best:
"The iPhone encourages you to be a consumer
Android encourages you to be a creator"
* Wireless and USB tethering.
* CIFS mount,
* Bluetooth HID keyboard demon (with some fiddling)
* Extra 200+MB memory (Due to a kernel problem in the stock rom the N1 can only use half it's memory).
* Use of the LED flash as a torch, ability to use coloured notification lights in the trackball
* Ability to screenshot any app without using the SDK
* 360deg screen rotation
Those are the things that I unlocked my N1's bootloader for
No its fine.
Theft: The act of depriving another... ... of their property ... of their time
Theft of property:
Theft of service:
Copyright Infringement _removes nothing_ is is simply a breach of the covenant of copyright that many governments have established, it was established, in part, because the rules of theft _made no sense_ when applied to a body of work that could be duplicated with minimal effort.
It is different and it is not theft/stealing/piracy in anything but inaccurate colloquial parlance.
That _does not_ mean you get free reign to ignore it the same way that speeding is also not theft, but it can still get you fined and/or get your licence removed _when proven in a court of law_
And that's called fraud, the is no offence of "identity theft" its another colloquial term that has no baring on the actual offence
ASCAP are trying to push just that sort or nonsense. Thankfully they got a bloody nose trying it, but it's indicative of the way they think:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/10/court-rules-phones-ringing-public-dont-infringe-co
I'd go so far as to say its "Building part of your chicken-enclosure out of foxes, that have promised to stay still"