No, not really. How much do you think it costs to develop games for the PS3 or XBox 360? Developing professionally for those platforms costs thousands of dollars. PS3 did have the Linux option, now gone, and XBox 360 does have hobbyist options, but if you actually want to release games to the public, you're not talking the retail price of the device, you're talking thousands. I don't see why it's so hard to grasp the iPhone is not, and was never intended to be, a general-purpose computing device. The development model, OS and user experience are designed to bring console-style simplicity and reliability to a smartphone. It works, and everyone is really happy with it, other than a few geeks who just can't grasp that it's not designed to be a really really small laptop. That's why Apple keep such a tight grasp on what goes on the device, how it's programmed etc., so it doesn't descend into a mess. It's also way, way cheaper to develop for than consoles.
Wow, that's the best non-argument I've heard in a long time, AC. Like - I know all about this and have lots of detail, but you wouldn't understand so let's just take it that I'm right. Awesome.
"...goods must (1) comply with the description given by the seller..."
The second clause only applies for things not covered by the first part. So the other OS feature was advertised (i.e. part of the 'description') so you don't have to specify it to the retailer. If you wanted something in addition, e.g. a very specific other OS would work ("this will run Amiga OS, right?") then part 2 would apply.
You're making a geek distinction that has no place in the world of law. Sony sold a device with certain features, one of those features no longer works following interference by the manufacturer. That's breach of contract.
Refusing something that works because we don't know how it works (and its correlate sticking with something that doesn't work, because we know it should work), is worse, in my book, than accepting that something works even though we don't know how or why.
That's exactly the bogus argument that proponents of 'alternative' treatments roll out all of the time. I'm not arguing about chiropractic for lower back pain (and neither was Singh) - I'm talking about non-spinal problems (I mentioned IBS above). It's not that we don't know how it works, it that we know it does not and cannot work. Giving examples of GPs or specialists giving bad treatments doesn't change the fact that genuine scientific medicine (the kind you get taught for an MD) works, and has mechanisms built in to do research and change practice when new information becomes available.
Chiropractic is magic medicine based on spurious beliefs. By chance, it works for some lower back pain, for everything else it's hogwash. There's plenty in real medicine that works by mechanisms that aren't completely clear - medical textbooks are full of statements to that effect - many treatments are validated empirically and tested for safety whilst the underlying mechanisms aren't fully understood.
Listen, if anyone was able to "realign your skull" you should either sue them for fraud, or have them arrested for assault. Go to one of the many anatomy websites and look at the structures connected to and underlying your skull. A skilled neurosurgeon could operate on the bones of your skull under strict radiological guidance, taking care not to cause damage to the blood vessels and underlying neural tissue. If someone really did manage to move your skull bones outside of an operating theatre then they did it by luck, not judgement, and you're lucky they didn't kill you or leave you severely brain-damaged. If, in fact, they didn't move your skull bones (which is overwhelmingly the most likely explanation) then they took your money fraudulently, and you deserve compensation for that.
I find it very telling that people will quickly call a chiropractor a "quack" but they will buy into just about anything an MD tells them. I myself have seen the benefits of going to a chiropractor, is it the placebo effect? Maybe, but even if it is why does that offend you so much?
It's like this: A chiropractor will earn your trust by treating something that arguably can be treated by physical therapy / massage, e.g. lower back pain. Having gained your trust, they will then claim to be able to help you with your irritable bowel syndrome, to which you think "well he helped with my back, must be worth a try". The placebo effect of having ongoing massage, the personal attention of having an apparently skilled professional spending time treating you, etc. etc., does seem to relieve the symptoms a bit, so you keep giving this guy money. In reality, he's abusing the trust you've placed in him, because there's not only lack of evidence that his treatment works for IBS, but actually there's plenty of evidence that it doesn't work at all, not least the body of scientific knowledge about the nervous and alimentary systems gleaned over the last century or so. On the other hand, when you get a treatment from an MD it is (or should be) scientific and evidence-based. When he earns your trust, you then go to him with another problem, which he treats again with something scientific and evidence-based. There's a world of difference - one abuses your trust, the other continues to offer genuine treatment.
Maybe in the (current) US system it doesn't matter - you can choose to spend your money or insurance premium as you see fit. In the UK, I get very angry with public money being spent on treatments proven to be non-beneificial - or at least no better than placebo.
The other thing that makes me angry is that chiropractors (and osteopaths) wind the clock back two centuries. Two hundred years ago, medical "professionals" of all varieties spouted all sorts of gibberish, and although provided therapeutic benefit in some cases, mostly they provided a false sense of reassurance and did good more by luck than judgement. The genuine medical profession has moved on, learnt a great deal, thrown out treatments that don't work, and is based on solid science. People complain about cancer treatment, but it is only because of the modern medical profession that people live long enough to die of cancers. Chiropractic quacks try to promote an anachronistic, magical view of medicine which makes a mockery of genuine science and the hard work of the medical profession.
I had a bad experience with a plumber one time. Should I say the entire profession is bad?
That depends - did the plumber spout a load of trivially disprovable pseudoscientific nonsense about water and pipework that appears to be shared by the rest of his profession and supported by his professional organisation?
No, it's a cludge, which is exactly my point. There's no way to have a proper touch-screen UI (i.e. press your finger to the screen to indicate the required action) that supports hover. You either have to have a touch-then-touch-again to click, so that the first touch is registered as a hover, or you have a tap-to-click, then tap-and-hold to hover. The first is a problem because you effectively have a hidden pointer (think about website where you hover over different icons to see different parts of the site) - unless you have a pointer on the screen you don't know where you're hovering. The second option has the opposite problem - you have to keep you finger (or stylus) on the same spot and then try to see through the stylus or hand to read the text. _Hover does not work_ on a tablet OS.
I doubt it. Presumably the would be doing ECG/EKG monitoring during the experiment, so I don't think they were looking for external symptoms, they would be looking at the heart rhythm. Although, VF is a rhythm that usually doesn't produce useful cardiac output, so the sheep would die, which I guess would be noticed even with sedation.
*cough* hello?? Loads of geeks use OSX precisely because it has BSD under the hood. I know it's fashionable to bash Apple at the moment for some reason, but wind the clock back 2 years and plenty of people were buying a MacBook so they could have the best of both worlds.
No, I think he understands that OS devs don't really think about tablet computing. None of the mainstream OSs are really suitable. Think about this - how much do you rely on 'hover'? Whenever I get a new piece of software, hovering over buttons to see the popup help / tooltip is my main way of getting to grips with it. May websites (particularly ones based on Flash) rely on hovering to reveal parts of the page. A proper tablet UI doesn't allow this, because you don't want a mouse pointer, you want the user to directly tap to indicate a click. The only way to support hover properly is to use a horrible cludge like some Windows-based tablets where there's a mouse pointer that jumps to your finger position, then lags behind as you move your finger around. You then have to take your finger off and tap again to register a click. This breaks the UI metaphor and makes it clear that you're using a poorly-adapted desktop environment.
This might sound like a minor detail, but the more you use a cludged tablet environment, the more of these details become obvious. The iPad is the first tablet that I'm aware of to have an OS designed from the ground up for fingertip usage, and that is a major development (if not quite a breakthrough). For those who were hoping for a relatively powerful general purpose computer with a unix-based OS that they could use on the bus or in a lecture theatre, it's obviously a disappointment. For the rest of the world who want to read the news and check their email whilst having coffee in bed first thing, it's ideal.
This is also one of the reason why I agree with Apple about not supporting Flash. I'm sure it's not their main reason, and is basically Jobs' brand of social engineering, but Flash relies heavily on hover - especially on websites - and Apple would be forced into cludging together a way to make that work. I think in five years, everyone will be happy with that decision, just like the decision to drop floppy drives from iMacs was ridiculed because "everyone needs them", it turned out Jobs was totally right.
True. And Windows Mobile is a platform used by virtually every device manufacturer in at least one of their phones, bar Apple and Google, and has been on the market for years. I would phrase your statement in the reverse "despite Window Mobile being on the market for many years, and despite being pushed by a plethora of device manufacturers, Apple have easily beaten its market share in the short time that the iPhone has been available".
I guess the point is, on the iPhone, there's a thriving app store with many games and it's making Apple a fortune whilst entertaining college kids and bored commuters. I can't understand the sudden obsession with Flash - a year ago if you mentioned Flash on Slashdot you would be shot down for even suggesting it should be used.
Every teenager I know has or wants a smartphone. Observing around my younger cousins and the kids at church, most have an iPhone, if they don't they have an iPod Touch and pretend to have an iPhone except when making actual phone calls. A few have a Blackberry because there was an offer in the UK last year to get one really cheaply and they have most of the features of an iPhone without the pretty. Apps are big, it's the ideal pocket-money purchase.
Hey, I'm not forcing anything on anybody. I have an iPhone and I've never, ever missed Flash. Not once. I ask again - what problem do we have for which Flash is the answer. It's a 1990s technology that was only ever a stopgap, its days are numbered and I will be very happy to see it go.
What problem do we have for which Flash is the answer? About the only thing flash was good for was embedded video, and there are now multiple standards that do a much better job. Interactive web sites no longer require Flash.
It's not Amazon's fault, but they are still in breach of their contract when they sold the device, because it can't do something that it was advertised to do. The correct course is exactly what has happened here - the retailer settles with the customer (with whom they have a contract) and then takes it up with the manufacturer (because Amazon has a contract with them and the customer doesn't in terms of the sale). Unfair contract terms cannot be enforced. Amazon has sold a product with certain features advertised. You may be right in saying that those features are tied to another contract, but ultimately if the goods cannot function as advertised then Amazon are in breach of the sale contract.
I think you're getting confused because the EULA you mention is with Sony, and Sony also manufactured the console, and that is muddying the water. Think of it this way: if Amazon had marketed the console as "works with eBay!!" and then eBay changed their website so it didn't work with the PS3 browser, that wouldn't be Amazon's fault, but it would be their responsibility to make right or offer compensation as they advertised that feature when the sale was made.
It doesn't do everything it was advertised to do. If you accept the upgrade, the (advertised) "other OS" feature ceases to work. If you refuse the upgrade the (advertised) feature of being able to connect to PSN ceases to work. Having to accept the EULA for PSN may be an additional requirement, but the device as sold should be able to connect.
Slashdot Mirror
No, not really. How much do you think it costs to develop games for the PS3 or XBox 360? Developing professionally for those platforms costs thousands of dollars. PS3 did have the Linux option, now gone, and XBox 360 does have hobbyist options, but if you actually want to release games to the public, you're not talking the retail price of the device, you're talking thousands. I don't see why it's so hard to grasp the iPhone is not, and was never intended to be, a general-purpose computing device. The development model, OS and user experience are designed to bring console-style simplicity and reliability to a smartphone. It works, and everyone is really happy with it, other than a few geeks who just can't grasp that it's not designed to be a really really small laptop. That's why Apple keep such a tight grasp on what goes on the device, how it's programmed etc., so it doesn't descend into a mess. It's also way, way cheaper to develop for than consoles.
"..not that you would understand"
Wow, that's the best non-argument I've heard in a long time, AC. Like - I know all about this and have lots of detail, but you wouldn't understand so let's just take it that I'm right. Awesome.
"...goods must (1) comply with the description given by the seller..."
The second clause only applies for things not covered by the first part. So the other OS feature was advertised (i.e. part of the 'description') so you don't have to specify it to the retailer. If you wanted something in addition, e.g. a very specific other OS would work ("this will run Amiga OS, right?") then part 2 would apply.
Yes!! You've hit on the perfect answer. Hindsight and a time machine can solve any problem. Bravo!
Sony sold the device to the retailer, so there is a contract between Sony and the retailer. Unless you think the retailers stole the PS3s?
You're making a geek distinction that has no place in the world of law. Sony sold a device with certain features, one of those features no longer works following interference by the manufacturer. That's breach of contract.
Refusing something that works because we don't know how it works (and its correlate sticking with something that doesn't work, because we know it should work), is worse, in my book, than accepting that something works even though we don't know how or why.
That's exactly the bogus argument that proponents of 'alternative' treatments roll out all of the time. I'm not arguing about chiropractic for lower back pain (and neither was Singh) - I'm talking about non-spinal problems (I mentioned IBS above). It's not that we don't know how it works, it that we know it does not and cannot work. Giving examples of GPs or specialists giving bad treatments doesn't change the fact that genuine scientific medicine (the kind you get taught for an MD) works, and has mechanisms built in to do research and change practice when new information becomes available.
Chiropractic is magic medicine based on spurious beliefs. By chance, it works for some lower back pain, for everything else it's hogwash. There's plenty in real medicine that works by mechanisms that aren't completely clear - medical textbooks are full of statements to that effect - many treatments are validated empirically and tested for safety whilst the underlying mechanisms aren't fully understood.
Listen, if anyone was able to "realign your skull" you should either sue them for fraud, or have them arrested for assault. Go to one of the many anatomy websites and look at the structures connected to and underlying your skull. A skilled neurosurgeon could operate on the bones of your skull under strict radiological guidance, taking care not to cause damage to the blood vessels and underlying neural tissue. If someone really did manage to move your skull bones outside of an operating theatre then they did it by luck, not judgement, and you're lucky they didn't kill you or leave you severely brain-damaged. If, in fact, they didn't move your skull bones (which is overwhelmingly the most likely explanation) then they took your money fraudulently, and you deserve compensation for that.
I find it very telling that people will quickly call a chiropractor a "quack" but they will buy into just about anything an MD tells them. I myself have seen the benefits of going to a chiropractor, is it the placebo effect? Maybe, but even if it is why does that offend you so much?
It's like this: A chiropractor will earn your trust by treating something that arguably can be treated by physical therapy / massage, e.g. lower back pain. Having gained your trust, they will then claim to be able to help you with your irritable bowel syndrome, to which you think "well he helped with my back, must be worth a try". The placebo effect of having ongoing massage, the personal attention of having an apparently skilled professional spending time treating you, etc. etc., does seem to relieve the symptoms a bit, so you keep giving this guy money. In reality, he's abusing the trust you've placed in him, because there's not only lack of evidence that his treatment works for IBS, but actually there's plenty of evidence that it doesn't work at all, not least the body of scientific knowledge about the nervous and alimentary systems gleaned over the last century or so. On the other hand, when you get a treatment from an MD it is (or should be) scientific and evidence-based. When he earns your trust, you then go to him with another problem, which he treats again with something scientific and evidence-based. There's a world of difference - one abuses your trust, the other continues to offer genuine treatment.
Maybe in the (current) US system it doesn't matter - you can choose to spend your money or insurance premium as you see fit. In the UK, I get very angry with public money being spent on treatments proven to be non-beneificial - or at least no better than placebo.
The other thing that makes me angry is that chiropractors (and osteopaths) wind the clock back two centuries. Two hundred years ago, medical "professionals" of all varieties spouted all sorts of gibberish, and although provided therapeutic benefit in some cases, mostly they provided a false sense of reassurance and did good more by luck than judgement. The genuine medical profession has moved on, learnt a great deal, thrown out treatments that don't work, and is based on solid science. People complain about cancer treatment, but it is only because of the modern medical profession that people live long enough to die of cancers. Chiropractic quacks try to promote an anachronistic, magical view of medicine which makes a mockery of genuine science and the hard work of the medical profession.
I had a bad experience with a plumber one time. Should I say the entire profession is bad?
That depends - did the plumber spout a load of trivially disprovable pseudoscientific nonsense about water and pipework that appears to be shared by the rest of his profession and supported by his professional organisation?
No, it's a cludge, which is exactly my point. There's no way to have a proper touch-screen UI (i.e. press your finger to the screen to indicate the required action) that supports hover. You either have to have a touch-then-touch-again to click, so that the first touch is registered as a hover, or you have a tap-to-click, then tap-and-hold to hover. The first is a problem because you effectively have a hidden pointer (think about website where you hover over different icons to see different parts of the site) - unless you have a pointer on the screen you don't know where you're hovering. The second option has the opposite problem - you have to keep you finger (or stylus) on the same spot and then try to see through the stylus or hand to read the text. _Hover does not work_ on a tablet OS.
I doubt it. Presumably the would be doing ECG/EKG monitoring during the experiment, so I don't think they were looking for external symptoms, they would be looking at the heart rhythm. Although, VF is a rhythm that usually doesn't produce useful cardiac output, so the sheep would die, which I guess would be noticed even with sedation.
It's not like anyone uses OSX for the BSD
*cough* hello?? Loads of geeks use OSX precisely because it has BSD under the hood. I know it's fashionable to bash Apple at the moment for some reason, but wind the clock back 2 years and plenty of people were buying a MacBook so they could have the best of both worlds.
No, I think he understands that OS devs don't really think about tablet computing. None of the mainstream OSs are really suitable. Think about this - how much do you rely on 'hover'? Whenever I get a new piece of software, hovering over buttons to see the popup help / tooltip is my main way of getting to grips with it. May websites (particularly ones based on Flash) rely on hovering to reveal parts of the page. A proper tablet UI doesn't allow this, because you don't want a mouse pointer, you want the user to directly tap to indicate a click. The only way to support hover properly is to use a horrible cludge like some Windows-based tablets where there's a mouse pointer that jumps to your finger position, then lags behind as you move your finger around. You then have to take your finger off and tap again to register a click. This breaks the UI metaphor and makes it clear that you're using a poorly-adapted desktop environment.
This might sound like a minor detail, but the more you use a cludged tablet environment, the more of these details become obvious. The iPad is the first tablet that I'm aware of to have an OS designed from the ground up for fingertip usage, and that is a major development (if not quite a breakthrough). For those who were hoping for a relatively powerful general purpose computer with a unix-based OS that they could use on the bus or in a lecture theatre, it's obviously a disappointment. For the rest of the world who want to read the news and check their email whilst having coffee in bed first thing, it's ideal.
This is also one of the reason why I agree with Apple about not supporting Flash. I'm sure it's not their main reason, and is basically Jobs' brand of social engineering, but Flash relies heavily on hover - especially on websites - and Apple would be forced into cludging together a way to make that work. I think in five years, everyone will be happy with that decision, just like the decision to drop floppy drives from iMacs was ridiculed because "everyone needs them", it turned out Jobs was totally right.
True. And Windows Mobile is a platform used by virtually every device manufacturer in at least one of their phones, bar Apple and Google, and has been on the market for years. I would phrase your statement in the reverse "despite Window Mobile being on the market for many years, and despite being pushed by a plethora of device manufacturers, Apple have easily beaten its market share in the short time that the iPhone has been available".
Beer is free when someone gives it away. You get the liquid but not the recipe. That's the point of the analogy.
I guess the point is, on the iPhone, there's a thriving app store with many games and it's making Apple a fortune whilst entertaining college kids and bored commuters. I can't understand the sudden obsession with Flash - a year ago if you mentioned Flash on Slashdot you would be shot down for even suggesting it should be used.
Every teenager I know has or wants a smartphone. Observing around my younger cousins and the kids at church, most have an iPhone, if they don't they have an iPod Touch and pretend to have an iPhone except when making actual phone calls. A few have a Blackberry because there was an offer in the UK last year to get one really cheaply and they have most of the features of an iPhone without the pretty. Apps are big, it's the ideal pocket-money purchase.
Hey, I'm not forcing anything on anybody. I have an iPhone and I've never, ever missed Flash. Not once. I ask again - what problem do we have for which Flash is the answer. It's a 1990s technology that was only ever a stopgap, its days are numbered and I will be very happy to see it go.
So you've been all the 'high level' meetings between Adobe and Apple have you? Anything else you can tell us then?
What problem do we have for which Flash is the answer? About the only thing flash was good for was embedded video, and there are now multiple standards that do a much better job. Interactive web sites no longer require Flash.
None of those will help when the router is switched off.
Yup. You unplug the router when you go to bed. It's really easy and 100% reliable. If necessary, have the router in the parent's bedroom.
It's not Amazon's fault, but they are still in breach of their contract when they sold the device, because it can't do something that it was advertised to do. The correct course is exactly what has happened here - the retailer settles with the customer (with whom they have a contract) and then takes it up with the manufacturer (because Amazon has a contract with them and the customer doesn't in terms of the sale). Unfair contract terms cannot be enforced. Amazon has sold a product with certain features advertised. You may be right in saying that those features are tied to another contract, but ultimately if the goods cannot function as advertised then Amazon are in breach of the sale contract.
I think you're getting confused because the EULA you mention is with Sony, and Sony also manufactured the console, and that is muddying the water. Think of it this way: if Amazon had marketed the console as "works with eBay!!" and then eBay changed their website so it didn't work with the PS3 browser, that wouldn't be Amazon's fault, but it would be their responsibility to make right or offer compensation as they advertised that feature when the sale was made.
It doesn't do everything it was advertised to do. If you accept the upgrade, the (advertised) "other OS" feature ceases to work. If you refuse the upgrade the (advertised) feature of being able to connect to PSN ceases to work. Having to accept the EULA for PSN may be an additional requirement, but the device as sold should be able to connect.