Your missing the point entirely here. It's not about having an agenda.
Unless one is a robot, *everyone* has multiple agendas. This is about having a hidden agenda and deceiving people into thinking you don't have an agenda when in fact you do.
It's about plain old honesty and integrity (or actually a lack of it).
Your argument, (like a shocking amount of posts here), seems to amount to "everyone does it" but as your Mother might have told you "If everyone else jumps off the bridge does that make it a good thing to do?"
You will no doubt be pleased to note that the largest part of your main criticism is being addressed.
I CAN ADD APPLICATIONS TO IT:-)...and I do...all the time. Games, JVMs, new browsers, whatever I want...from thousands of freeware and commercial titles. Rumour has it that ringtones will be available:
What most people seem to have missed is that iPhone requires iTunes 7.3 which has yet to be released even though the iPhone will go on sale on Friday. Among the surprises the new iTunes seems to offer are two extra tabs on the interface.
One of these is "ringtones" and I would bet the other is probably either iPhone games or iPhone 3rd party applications (same diff).
People also might want to ask themselves why if it's impossible to unlock the phone or use VoIP exclusively, why ATT is charging such a high disconnect fee?
I think the iPhone will quickly be "opened" (there are websites already advertising this), and that ATT has made the traditional "deal with the devil" in that regard. Their service is already widely reported as "the main thing wrong with the iPhone." Does anyone really believe that Steve Jobs would want to lock everyone into ATT crap service for 5 years?
There WILL be other options, you can bet on it. It's part of the strategy. Get ATT to sell the thing by signing up for an exclusive contract, then allow everyone access to VoIP through the backdoor of 3rd party development. I can see Steve shrugging his shoulders now at the board meeting and saying:
"Hey, it's not our fault that everyone is using VoIP and not EDGE."
Sadly, it's only a matter of time before Hollywood makes a movie wherein the main character, (suitably restrained by the terrorists), manages to dial for help with a nose, nipple or penis.
This is already waaay off topic and borderline inappropriate in that it seems to be getting personal, so I will just say...
look it up. (Fascism I mean).
All the things I listed are the main indicators of totalitarianism and they are all present in the US today to a very high degree. In terms of Fascist totalitarian regimes in particular, the main indicator of a fascist society has always been the link-up between business interests and the interests of the state & military, and the subsequent drop in personal liberty and human rights that inevitably follows from putting the personal power and wealth of a ruling "elite" ahead of the interests of the people.
Your entire argument rests on this:
A computer, by common definition since 1980s means something you can install programs, there is some payware or free SDK open to development. ... and it's is just not true.
There are tons and tons of computers throughout the history of computing that do not let you install software and do not have an SDK available. Many computers function as appliances just like this one.
In fact, the very first "personal computer" that I had exposure to in the 1970's (and BTW this is a LOT of people's first experience with a computer), was something called a "calculator." It was a little bigger than the iPhone, but it could add, subtract *and* divide! It cost just over a hundred dollars and my Mum bought it for us kids so they could use it at school.
You have removed the sig, (so I can only go by memory) but it was something about "outlawing dictatorships in all countries of the world," right? This statement makes no sense because if the country is a dictatorship already, said dictatorship is of course already "legal." However if on the other hand the country is *not* a dictatorship but a democracy, then the concept of dictatorship is already outlawed by default. The very structures that make up a democratic society are the opposite of a dictatorship.
Crucially, the concept of "outlawing dictatorships" is not actually going to stop any real dictators, as almost every dictator in history was elected in the normal democratic *legal* way by the population. This is true of all the biggies like Hitler, Mussolini, Hussein, etc. It's only *after* they are elected that they decide to forgo the whole democracy thing. So "outlawing dictators" is not likely to actually do anything.
The USA is a perfect example in that it is ostensibly a democratic country, wherein dictatorships are "outlawed" in the sense that such a formulation would be explicitly not allowed by law. Yet today, the US has transformed into a classic fascist state in all but name. Business controls the government, (instead of the people as in a democracy). Religion and fear control the population, civil liberties and privacy are almost non-existent, freedom of expression is squashed, the media is strictly controlled, and human rights abuses abound. The executive branch of government is not only wildly out of control, today it dominates and supersedes the legislative branch of government, and completely overrides the judicial branch. On the world stage the country acts as an empirical conquering force, a military empire in fact.
All of these are classic, classic indicators of totalitarianism, fascism in general, and dictatorships and we find all this in a country that is supposed to be the exact *opposite* of a dictatorship wherein dictatorship is explicitly "outlawed!" And yet it's a hairsbreadth from being a dictatorship itself. (oh, the irony!):-)
So for these reasons and many more, it seems (to me), to be an illogical statement to say "dictatorships should be outlawed around the world."
I'm personally going to use the iPhone as a "tool detector". If I see that someone actually ran out and bought one instantly, then I know all I need to know about that person.:) Don't look now, but I think that quote in your sig functions in exactly the same way.;-)
Anonymous Coward sez... What else can you expect from a fat cat sconnie [wisc.edu] who prides himself on the BMWs he's owned [wisc.edu] and lists his top 'interest' as Apple? Wow, your/. handle matches your personality so well! Good Job!:-)
I noticed some "gaming" of the moderation here lately as well.
Posts that are little more than juvenile insults seem to be being modded as "insightful" quite a bit recently. I think some of the Engadget kiddies have carefully groomed a slashdot log-in or two so as to be able to mod up their own posts.;-)
Even if the Engadget conspiracy isn't true, this kind of modding can only reflect someone of such low intelligence and perceptive abilities as to make them virtually worthless as a moderator anyway.
The last I read was that it *does* use SIMs, but that, like other phones, it is purposely "locked" so swapping out the SIM card would not work. It also supposedly also has a SIM card slot at the top of the unit the last I heard. Which is true?
If it uses SIMs but cannot be unlocked, then it's only a matter of time till some hacker turns "cannot" into "can." If it doesn't use SIMs at all then that's a pretty final solution for hackers (and extremely unfair to the consumers).
Wow, I wish I had my moderator points from yesterday for this post.:-)
How is it that this is moderated "+5 insightful" when it's basically just a personal attack on the author of the article? I thought Ad Hominem attacks like "It's written by a moron or a zealot.." were more for youth oriented sites Giz and Engadget?
The poster of this comment tries to point out a logical fallacy in the article (that doesn't actually exist), and then follows up with another insult ("... this guy is an overly biased Apple-zealot..") and it comes out +5 insightful?
Please keep the monkeys away from the moderating system!
While it's statistically possible they might end up with Shakespearen critiques, it's more likely they will fling poo around like this fellow did.
In addition to being US only, if you read the New York Times article referenced, (hard to do since it's so poorly written), the "70%" of internet users stream video" claim should actually be "70% of internet users have accessed streaming video lately" i.e. - they have clicked on a link. These are not necessarily bleeding edge internet-video adopters. This is your grandmother clicking on a video link to a news story or teenagers swapping camera-mugging webcam videos.
There is also no backup for these claims, and no specifics on how the numbers are calculated except some indications on the comScore Inc. site (the source of the data), that point towards a simple packet sniffing operation. In other words, statements like "people are clicking on videos a lot lately" or "videos are really popular lately" are likely to be just as accurate and informative.
This is a good example of how a story evolves when it moves from one source to another. The comScore Inc. study is specific to types of data traffic on the net, but by the time it's in the New York Times it's "...the computer (is) well on its way toward total entertainment domination in the home." Then this general propensity for video consumption, and the feeling that "something is happening" with online video, is used to bolster the slashdot article.
What the heck is up with slashdot today anyway? First this, then at the top of the page this morning, a SLASHvertisement for a tablecloth? Has it really come to that? Articles about high-tech tablecloths?
What is this, Engadget or Giz? Are we now going to see articles about how great the Zune is, or how evil Apple is?
I think the real point here is not about freedom, but about the flip-side of freedom, i.e. - responsibility.
If sick adults want to role-play psychopathic rampages, it's very sad, but most likely should be allowed (until that great day comes when such rejects aren't around anymore). The reason for media censorship in this case however (and with most others to do with gaming), is that these games are demonstrably bad for children to play, emulate, or worse, idolise. Most normal people's fears about these games fall into the category of fear for their children, or their communities children, not a desire to censor adult consensual behaviour.
None of the posters here are making that key distinction and those that say "this game is only for adults anyway" are full of it, and you know it. The main players of these types of games is young male kids. A lot of these are the "20 something" kids who are legally allowed to play such crap, but a lot of the kids also playing these games are little kids, 12 to 14 year olds.
If the makers of such games merely exercised a minimum of discretion and found some way to ensure that their games would not be played by 10 year olds, or in many cases 6 or 8 year olds, I don't think any government on the planet would have a problem with them. The fact is however, that *any* game, regardless of the "mature" labels on the box, immediately finds it's way into the hands of little children because the game companies don't give a sh*t about who gets to play them.
Walk into any retail gaming store in my town and you will find hordes of prepubescent boys walking out with "R" and even "X" rated games. The odd time that the store clerk won't give a kid a game, his older brother or Dad will certainly buy it for him. Try to find a nine year old that plays computer games that has not played GTA, I've never seen one.
If the game production companies acted even *moderately* responsible here, there would not really be a problem with violent games. The guys behind this piece of poo (RockStar Games), have no social sense, and have never acted in anything except the most underhanded, "who gives a sh*t" kind of way to the public.
Why do they expect to be treated fairly when they don't do the same?
To those (many) people who are interpreting this as a battle between Hawking and Stross... your really just not paying attention.
Hawking merely states the obvious, which is that eventually, in the fullness of time, if we cannot survive without the Earth, then we shall certainly perish with it or because of some earth-bound, environmental/social calamity. This is self-evident, but does not equate to a belief that we will one day "colonise the galaxy." The chief variables in regards whether that happens or not are actually social or historical, not technological (as Stross rightly points out at the beginning of his article). The hope of galactic colonisation is perhaps built on the the same realisation that Hawking so aptly describes, but the two arguments are completely separate entities.
To those who's answer to Stross (and this seems to take care of most of the rest of the posts), is merely the invocation of some further "magic" technology... aside from the fact that this is just side-stepping the issues Stross brought up, it ignores one final fact about interstellar colonisation (sci-fi style), that Stross failed to mention, and that is the inherant biological limitations.
As biological entities on Earth, we must eat to survive, and the proteins and amino acids we eat are derived from the environment around us. We are symbiotic with our environment as a whole and inseparable from it. Even if we found an "earth-like" planet, and even if panspermia turns out to be as accurate a hypothesis as it seems to be lately, divergent evolution would mean that a "space-potato" from another planetary system would never be consumable by an earth person. Despite whatever nutritive properties the space potato had for the local fauna, our intrepid astronauts would starve to death. The amino acids would simply not fit. This applies to every plant or animal in that particular environment. The concept of interstellar trade in foodstuffs especially is nonsensical and things like "Romulan Ale" are fictions that can never be.
From the biological perspective, colonisation would mean either bringing the totality of our environment with us (terraforming all worlds with earth biology and destroying entire planetary ecosystems wherever we go), or transforming ourselves through genetics to "fit" the environments we find. Even then, such altered individuals would be as bound to their new world as we are to the old. Using Mars, (a local and rather famous example), we could not live there without turning it into a second Earth, or by turning ourselves into "Martians." Didn't anyone ever read "The Martian Chronicles"?;-)
Thus no matter what, even with "magic" technology that eliminates all the gravity, time, energy and FTL problems, individuals from earth would still never be able to colonise other planets as they do in most sci-fi stories.
As many have long suspected, the concept of "colonising the galaxy" probably has more to do with the territorial ambitions of empire than with any logical view of a possible future, and will likely be as humorous to those very future generations as Medieval opinions about the "superlative" nature of their medical technology are to us today.
Well it's not a conspiracy theory I am wholeheartedly pushing really, merely an observation that seemed rather likely to me, and one that no one else was talking about. I also agree (and stated myself) that the major reason for Safari on Windows, and one of the most useful outcomes of it's development is the promotion of standards based browsers. It just seemed unlikely to me that the URL checking in particular got by the development team.
If you assume that they didn't realise that Windows was going to fail to correctly validate the URLs, then the Safari development team are kind of incompetent (as many windows advocates were saying). I don't personally believe they could be that stupid, so the other explanation is that they knew about it and used the information in the way I suggested.
As much as I don't even use it myself currently, I think Safari has a real opportunity here given the possible growth of the iPhone market and the interest in iPhone's from Windows users. As Daniel Eran points out in Roughly Drafted, even a sliver of the Windows browser market is an immense gain for Safari, and if the iPhone ships in the numbers people are expecting, the portion of browsing dominated by Safari could easily grow very, very, large indeed.
By positioning itself as the "standard" (and standards compliant), browser for the Web 2.0 experience they *could* literally crush IE's market share and take over the whole thing, (although I would not make such a heady prediction for certain). MS could still come out with an iPhone like device, or (horrors!) finally get behind some software standards themselves.
Safari 3.0.1, however, is just damage control. Not "damage control," "media control."
I am surprised that not a single slashdot comment that I can find is stating the obvious, which is that this is "wag the dog" kind of stuff.
The patch was released almost too fast, what's the odds that it was already written?
Think about it. Apple releases an essentially identical, standards compliant browser on both Mac and Windows. Then it turns out that it's a security problem on Windows because of the foolish way in which Windows does not validate the URL. They then release a patch less than 24 hours later that allows them even more media coverage, exactly on that point. At the same time they get kudos for responding so fast.
Now on the day of the release (well half a day anyway), the press is all bad. But then comes dozens of articles about the fact that the problem is actually with Windows, not with Safari itself. Apple then gets to point out this fact in spades by mentioning in the press release that it was "windows fault and if you were on the Mac there is no need to worry." How good is that?:-)
To all those thinking Apple was embarrassed by the security flaws, your missing the bigger picture. A week from now no one will remember anything about that.
They will however remember that Apple fixed the "Windows problem" with Safari in less than 24 hours.
I think this whole exercise is a statement by Apple, a dig at windows specifically. They are not only showing Microsoft up by besting their best efforts in a browser, they are pointing out (again), that Windows is just less secure by design, as well as horribly non-compliant in terms of open standards. Even on the Mac, the main reason for Safari's existence has always been to promote the existence of open standards and open standard compliant browsers. What better illustration of that need could you get than this?
The day this goes "live" and the images are updated in real-time then you have something to worry about in terms of your licence plate being visible. It still won't be *illegal* though.
It also won't be a privacy violation because on that distant day (if it ever happens), we would already be living in a society of 24/7 surveillance. We know this because the only way such a system would work would be to have live webcams on every street-corner in the world feeding google maps, or at the very least millions of google camera trucks driving up and down streets all day.
In any case, everyone knows that when you go to a porn shop you are supposed to wear a dark trenchcoat, a fedora, and wraparound shades. Most also do a shoulder check to see if boss/wife/GF is around or any of their friends before entering.
Some of you folks should think a little more before writing.
A licence plates *entire* purpose is to prominently display the registration information (the fact that a car has a licence).
This is not only not "secret" or "personal" information, it's the exact opposite. Information specifically made to be displayed at all times and acessible to all.
They don't even need to go that far. The key word is "commercial."
As far as I can see, Google Maps is a free information service. While the parent company does indeed make profit from advertising, that advertising can be deleted or ignored. Said advertising is not even on the same page, just a text link to access the advertising (on a separate page), if you wish to.
Simply providing pictures on the internet, that may or may not have people in incriminating or embarrassing information in them, is not the same thing as taking a picture of someone and using it for a "commercial" purpose IMO. This law was intended to stop you taking pics of people and using them in advertisements for your products, or otherwise mis-appropriating the person's image.
This discussion reminds me of those folks that put up holiday snaps on Flicker and atttach a notice about how no one can use the information contained within in any way shape or form without express written consent from the original snap taker. A vain hope at best.
These sorts of things are covered by rational laws, not by an individuals weepy assertion that they feel "violated" or that they don't *want* to let other people see or use their image. Fair use has to be considered, always.
Humans should realise that they simply do not have the right to control how the other humans see them, especially in public places with no expectation of privacy. All you can really do is keep your private things at home, present your best face to the world and hope for the best, as has always been the case.
The guy who wrote this Giz article must be Dvorak's kid or something. What a total load of negative crap. It's also kind of wrong.
Yes, Web 2.0 apps are all you can do for now, so what? Is not this device the absolute perfect Web 2.0 platform? What other kind of "killer app" could there be that needs access to graphics frameworks on the device? Possibly the author is thinking of a million crappy shareware games, or one of those things that changes the interface to make it work in some silly way that ten people want it to (as opposed to the rest of the world).
The article is also purposely misleading. Some of the points made (as questions) are already answered in the press, the very press that Giz is supposed to be a part of.
For instance you *can* have AJAX apps that reside on the phone itself, they don't need to be in constant communication with the web host and the person who wrote the article should know that. Also, let's make no mention of DashCode and widgets even though they were announced at the same event. You will be able to store some data locally, and you will have access to multi-touch. All of this has been covered already if the author was truly doing his research.
It's pretty clear to me that the iPhone is perfectly positioned to be a runaway success. It's the web 2.0 stuff that everyone has been talking about for ages. If they announced it six months ago, not as a smart phone but as a "Portable Web 2.0 interface device" it would still be the same device but the "reporters" at Giz and all their high school buddies would be falling all over themselves with praise for the thing.
If it was positioned as a UMPC or even a PDA, the argument for outside development of core applications makes sense, but the thing is... it's not. It's a communicator. It's just a phone that does all the internet communication as well. You can expect it to get things like video conferencing in the future, or to act as your personalised identifier/key/wallet perhaps, because *those* are the kind of apps that make sense for such a device. If you want a "kitchen sink" portable computer, check out Windows Mobile or get a Linux machine and code away to your hearts content.
Lastly, does anyone really think that if a company came up with a "killer app" especially in the form of a widget, that Apple would shun them or something? Currently, widgets can be installed on your desktop right from Safari and there are several excellent choices that would complement the iPhone very nicely. Even if Apple initially disallows this behaviour for the iPhone, does anyone think that these will not eventually find their way onto it if they are good enough and actually usefull?
If the iPhone was totally open, you would see Linux addicts trying to install OpenOffice on it, ridiculously large graphically intensive FPS games that slow the entire Phone to a halt, and of course spyware installed through the browser to rip off that goldmine of personal information stored on it. It's likely that if the phone actually rang in the middle of Joe average coders FPS, he wouldn't have coded the game properly enough to suspend itself gracefully either, and that would kill the one "killer app" they have now, which is the phone itself.
The only surprising this about this article is that the author didn't compound his errors by arguing that it should be Java compatible as well.
I will reply to all six (snarky) responses at the same time and use this one (being as it's generally more polite than the others)...:-)
The reason I was surprised by this is, (as I clearly stated in my post), I have never purchased a tune from iTunes and therefore never had the opportunity to do a "GetInfo" on one of the files. I have been using Macs almost as long as they have been around and certainly know how to access information in this way.
You are all however completely wrong in regards how "discoverable" this information is.
The legal requirement I am referring to is that the user has to be told that their personal information is being recorded and placed in the file, there is simply no way around that. To say that this information is discoverable by using GetInfo is to say that by closely examining the properties of the file one can determine that it contains secret information. That is all well and good but it doesn't fulfill the requirement of the kinds of laws that I referred to.
As I stated, I have been an Mac (and Windows) user for about 20 years now and am currently a Mac technician. However, that doesn't mean I do a GetInfo on every file that crosses my desktop; why the heck would I?. I would only even bother to check if I wanted to reassign the program it opens with or more typically if I wanted to check the file size or date. Anyone, even a tech person, could reasonably buy tracks from iTunes for weeks without happening to do a GetInfo on one of the tracks. I don't remember ever having a reason to do a GetInfo on any of the files I ripped from my CD's into my iTunes at home either.
The test is also whether an average person would be aware of their personal information being placed in the file and clearly they would not. I maintain computers at work for many average, non-technical users that have themselves been using Macs every working day for upwards of 10 years. More often than not, theses folks are very surprised when I show them how to do a GetInfo on a file. A GetInfo is just NOT obvious to the average user at all regardless of how familiar it is to you or me.
The only requirement is for the vendor to simply tell the user at some point, most likely the point of purchase, that their name and email is being recorded. It's not difficult to do, a simple notice on their website or a EULA type click through would cover their ass, and I think it highly likely you will see some kind of notification added to the process or the website in the near future.
This is indeed a serious point, and one obfuscated by all the hoopla that the author of this article (and others), is creating over other, non-issues.
It's a basic tenet of any sane, decent, information privacy legislation and (I believe already the law in Europe), that you cannot embed or record people's personal data in a "secret" way. If a person is buying a product that has their personal information embedded in it, they have to *know* this is the case.
I (like many people), was originally shocked to find out the user name and email is embedded in the file being unaware that this was in fact *always* the case. Despite all the folks here pointing out that it was always the case, how many regular users of iTunes and iPods are aware of that? If it isn't commonly understood, then it's as good as secret.
It seems to me that if the embedding is not presented to the user at the point of purchase in a clear, obvious, "in your face" EULA type of way, then Apple should be in violation of European law or at the very least going completely against the spirit of personal data protection and privacy laws. Having never purchased on iTunes, I am not aware if this is the case or not, but the large number of people that were not aware of the practice suggests that it is not advertised much at all.
The point is that a person has to be able to maintain their own privacy if they need or want to. If a corporation is secretly (or even non-obviously) embedding personal data in a file, the user has to know it's in there in order to be able to manage or maintain their private information. Clearly, most users of iTunes had and have no idea that their personal information is being stored and may be at risk and no idea that they should have been protecting it.
Your really missing the point here; possibly because of a lack of knowledge about BBC, the UK, and the history behind all of this. I know I am making a big assumption there as to your background, but your comments make no sense to me except as being made by an uninformed observer.
The BBC is a public service and does not operate on the same standard corporate level that you seem to think it does. That's why they have a charter from the government (quoted many times in the article).
To refute your formulation of the articles main talking points specifically:
1st point - In regards DRM "not working"... the point is that circumvention of DRM is illegal and not something within the technical capabilities of the average user. Your suggestion would also turn all users into criminals and pirates.
2nd point - BBC users and UK citizens absolutely have the right to free content from the BBC. It's written in the charter as the article says.
3rd point - Viewing an internet video feed, and using the same material as part of an essay, report, study, artwork etc. (all under fair use), are two different things. The second one requires the ability to copy.
First off, Nicola Tesla was not insane. Secondly, he *did* do this, many times in fact.
Personally, I am a bit miffed at the MIT folks for not giving credit where credit is due. This is the second article I have seen in the last month or two on this topic and they hardly even mention the fact that this is a key Tesla invention that was in fact accomplished by him and repeatably demonstrated. To read the articles one would think that the folks at MIT just sat down last week and invented this all by themselves when it is simply not true.
It *is* the case that Tesla is a "fan favorite" of the same type of folks that like to believe in free energy machines and it *is* the case that his *commercial* attempt at providing wireless power was never finished, but the technique and the methodology behind it was sound and I think even patented by Tesla.
To ignore his achievements, simply because many years after his death the man has gained some tertiary association with the lunatic fringe is a bit outrageous to my mind. The particular article referenced here even goes out of it's way to say that Tesla tried wireless power but "failed" (even though they mention off-handedly that it was only through lack of funds, not through any technical problems).
Tesla invented this technique, plain and simple. And those articles that fail to mention it are doing history a great dis-service.
Slashdot Mirror
Your missing the point entirely here. It's not about having an agenda.
Unless one is a robot, *everyone* has multiple agendas. This is about having a hidden agenda and deceiving people into thinking you don't have an agenda when in fact you do.
It's about plain old honesty and integrity (or actually a lack of it).
Your argument, (like a shocking amount of posts here), seems to amount to "everyone does it" but as your Mother might have told you "If everyone else jumps off the bridge does that make it a good thing to do?"
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/06/27/itunes-7-3-wi
and that 3rd party development is also very likely:
http://macapper.com/2007/06/27/exclusive-third-pa
What most people seem to have missed is that iPhone requires iTunes 7.3 which has yet to be released even though the iPhone will go on sale on Friday. Among the surprises the new iTunes seems to offer are two extra tabs on the interface.
One of these is "ringtones" and I would bet the other is probably either iPhone games or iPhone 3rd party applications (same diff).
People also might want to ask themselves why if it's impossible to unlock the phone or use VoIP exclusively, why ATT is charging such a high disconnect fee?
I think the iPhone will quickly be "opened" (there are websites already advertising this), and that ATT has made the traditional "deal with the devil" in that regard. Their service is already widely reported as "the main thing wrong with the iPhone." Does anyone really believe that Steve Jobs would want to lock everyone into ATT crap service for 5 years?
There WILL be other options, you can bet on it. It's part of the strategy. Get ATT to sell the thing by signing up for an exclusive contract, then allow everyone access to VoIP through the backdoor of 3rd party development. I can see Steve shrugging his shoulders now at the board meeting and saying:
"Hey, it's not our fault that everyone is using VoIP and not EDGE."
Sadly, it's only a matter of time before Hollywood makes a movie wherein the main character, (suitably restrained by the terrorists), manages to dial for help with a nose, nipple or penis.
This is already waaay off topic and borderline inappropriate in that it seems to be getting personal, so I will just say...
look it up. (Fascism I mean).
All the things I listed are the main indicators of totalitarianism and they are all present in the US today to a very high degree. In terms of Fascist totalitarian regimes in particular, the main indicator of a fascist society has always been the link-up between business interests and the interests of the state & military, and the subsequent drop in personal liberty and human rights that inevitably follows from putting the personal power and wealth of a ruling "elite" ahead of the interests of the people.
There are tons and tons of computers throughout the history of computing that do not let you install software and do not have an SDK available. Many computers function as appliances just like this one.
In fact, the very first "personal computer" that I had exposure to in the 1970's (and BTW this is a LOT of people's first experience with a computer), was something called a "calculator." It was a little bigger than the iPhone, but it could add, subtract *and* divide! It cost just over a hundred dollars and my Mum bought it for us kids so they could use it at school.
No, because it makes no sense.
:-)
You have removed the sig, (so I can only go by memory) but it was something about "outlawing dictatorships in all countries of the world," right? This statement makes no sense because if the country is a dictatorship already, said dictatorship is of course already "legal." However if on the other hand the country is *not* a dictatorship but a democracy, then the concept of dictatorship is already outlawed by default. The very structures that make up a democratic society are the opposite of a dictatorship.
Crucially, the concept of "outlawing dictatorships" is not actually going to stop any real dictators, as almost every dictator in history was elected in the normal democratic *legal* way by the population. This is true of all the biggies like Hitler, Mussolini, Hussein, etc. It's only *after* they are elected that they decide to forgo the whole democracy thing. So "outlawing dictators" is not likely to actually do anything.
The USA is a perfect example in that it is ostensibly a democratic country, wherein dictatorships are "outlawed" in the sense that such a formulation would be explicitly not allowed by law. Yet today, the US has transformed into a classic fascist state in all but name. Business controls the government, (instead of the people as in a democracy). Religion and fear control the population, civil liberties and privacy are almost non-existent, freedom of expression is squashed, the media is strictly controlled, and human rights abuses abound. The executive branch of government is not only wildly out of control, today it dominates and supersedes the legislative branch of government, and completely overrides the judicial branch. On the world stage the country acts as an empirical conquering force, a military empire in fact.
All of these are classic, classic indicators of totalitarianism, fascism in general, and dictatorships and we find all this in a country that is supposed to be the exact *opposite* of a dictatorship wherein dictatorship is explicitly "outlawed!" And yet it's a hairsbreadth from being a dictatorship itself. (oh, the irony!)
So for these reasons and many more, it seems (to me), to be an illogical statement to say "dictatorships should be outlawed around the world."
What else can you expect from a fat cat sconnie [wisc.edu] who prides himself on the BMWs he's owned [wisc.edu] and lists his top 'interest' as Apple? Wow, your
I noticed some "gaming" of the moderation here lately as well.
;-)
Posts that are little more than juvenile insults seem to be being modded as "insightful" quite a bit recently. I think some of the Engadget kiddies have carefully groomed a slashdot log-in or two so as to be able to mod up their own posts.
Even if the Engadget conspiracy isn't true, this kind of modding can only reflect someone of such low intelligence and perceptive abilities as to make them virtually worthless as a moderator anyway.
Where did you get that quote?
The last I read was that it *does* use SIMs, but that, like other phones, it is purposely "locked" so swapping out the SIM card would not work. It also supposedly also has a SIM card slot at the top of the unit the last I heard. Which is true?
If it uses SIMs but cannot be unlocked, then it's only a matter of time till some hacker turns "cannot" into "can." If it doesn't use SIMs at all then that's a pretty final solution for hackers (and extremely unfair to the consumers).
Wow, I wish I had my moderator points from yesterday for this post. :-)
How is it that this is moderated "+5 insightful" when it's basically just a personal attack on the author of the article? I thought Ad Hominem attacks like "It's written by a moron or a zealot.." were more for youth oriented sites Giz and Engadget?
The poster of this comment tries to point out a logical fallacy in the article (that doesn't actually exist), and then follows up with another insult ("... this guy is an overly biased Apple-zealot..") and it comes out +5 insightful?
Please keep the monkeys away from the moderating system!
While it's statistically possible they might end up with Shakespearen critiques, it's more likely they will fling poo around like this fellow did.
In addition to being US only, if you read the New York Times article referenced, (hard to do since it's so poorly written), the "70%" of internet users stream video" claim should actually be "70% of internet users have accessed streaming video lately" i.e. - they have clicked on a link. These are not necessarily bleeding edge internet-video adopters. This is your grandmother clicking on a video link to a news story or teenagers swapping camera-mugging webcam videos.
There is also no backup for these claims, and no specifics on how the numbers are calculated except some indications on the comScore Inc. site (the source of the data), that point towards a simple packet sniffing operation. In other words, statements like "people are clicking on videos a lot lately" or "videos are really popular lately" are likely to be just as accurate and informative.
This is a good example of how a story evolves when it moves from one source to another. The comScore Inc. study is specific to types of data traffic on the net, but by the time it's in the New York Times it's "...the computer (is) well on its way toward total entertainment domination in the home." Then this general propensity for video consumption, and the feeling that "something is happening" with online video, is used to bolster the slashdot article.
What the heck is up with slashdot today anyway? First this, then at the top of the page this morning, a SLASHvertisement for a tablecloth? Has it really come to that? Articles about high-tech tablecloths?
What is this, Engadget or Giz?
Are we now going to see articles about how great the Zune is, or how evil Apple is?
I think the real point here is not about freedom, but about the flip-side of freedom, i.e. - responsibility.
If sick adults want to role-play psychopathic rampages, it's very sad, but most likely should be allowed (until that great day comes when such rejects aren't around anymore). The reason for media censorship in this case however (and with most others to do with gaming), is that these games are demonstrably bad for children to play, emulate, or worse, idolise. Most normal people's fears about these games fall into the category of fear for their children, or their communities children, not a desire to censor adult consensual behaviour.
None of the posters here are making that key distinction and those that say "this game is only for adults anyway" are full of it, and you know it. The main players of these types of games is young male kids. A lot of these are the "20 something" kids who are legally allowed to play such crap, but a lot of the kids also playing these games are little kids, 12 to 14 year olds.
If the makers of such games merely exercised a minimum of discretion and found some way to ensure that their games would not be played by 10 year olds, or in many cases 6 or 8 year olds, I don't think any government on the planet would have a problem with them. The fact is however, that *any* game, regardless of the "mature" labels on the box, immediately finds it's way into the hands of little children because the game companies don't give a sh*t about who gets to play them.
Walk into any retail gaming store in my town and you will find hordes of prepubescent boys walking out with "R" and even "X" rated games. The odd time that the store clerk won't give a kid a game, his older brother or Dad will certainly buy it for him. Try to find a nine year old that plays computer games that has not played GTA, I've never seen one.
If the game production companies acted even *moderately* responsible here, there would not really be a problem with violent games. The guys behind this piece of poo (RockStar Games), have no social sense, and have never acted in anything except the most underhanded, "who gives a sh*t" kind of way to the public.
Why do they expect to be treated fairly when they don't do the same?
To those (many) people who are interpreting this as a battle between Hawking and Stross... your really just not paying attention.
;-)
Hawking merely states the obvious, which is that eventually, in the fullness of time, if we cannot survive without the Earth, then we shall certainly perish with it or because of some earth-bound, environmental/social calamity. This is self-evident, but does not equate to a belief that we will one day "colonise the galaxy." The chief variables in regards whether that happens or not are actually social or historical, not technological (as Stross rightly points out at the beginning of his article). The hope of galactic colonisation is perhaps built on the the same realisation that Hawking so aptly describes, but the two arguments are completely separate entities.
To those who's answer to Stross (and this seems to take care of most of the rest of the posts), is merely the invocation of some further "magic" technology... aside from the fact that this is just side-stepping the issues Stross brought up, it ignores one final fact about interstellar colonisation (sci-fi style), that Stross failed to mention, and that is the inherant biological limitations.
As biological entities on Earth, we must eat to survive, and the proteins and amino acids we eat are derived from the environment around us. We are symbiotic with our environment as a whole and inseparable from it. Even if we found an "earth-like" planet, and even if panspermia turns out to be as accurate a hypothesis as it seems to be lately, divergent evolution would mean that a "space-potato" from another planetary system would never be consumable by an earth person. Despite whatever nutritive properties the space potato had for the local fauna, our intrepid astronauts would starve to death. The amino acids would simply not fit. This applies to every plant or animal in that particular environment. The concept of interstellar trade in foodstuffs especially is nonsensical and things like "Romulan Ale" are fictions that can never be.
From the biological perspective, colonisation would mean either bringing the totality of our environment with us (terraforming all worlds with earth biology and destroying entire planetary ecosystems wherever we go), or transforming ourselves through genetics to "fit" the environments we find. Even then, such altered individuals would be as bound to their new world as we are to the old. Using Mars, (a local and rather famous example), we could not live there without turning it into a second Earth, or by turning ourselves into "Martians." Didn't anyone ever read "The Martian Chronicles"?
Thus no matter what, even with "magic" technology that eliminates all the gravity, time, energy and FTL problems, individuals from earth would still never be able to colonise other planets as they do in most sci-fi stories.
As many have long suspected, the concept of "colonising the galaxy" probably has more to do with the territorial ambitions of empire than with any logical view of a possible future, and will likely be as humorous to those very future generations as Medieval opinions about the "superlative" nature of their medical technology are to us today.
Well it's not a conspiracy theory I am wholeheartedly pushing really, merely an observation that seemed rather likely to me, and one that no one else was talking about. I also agree (and stated myself) that the major reason for Safari on Windows, and one of the most useful outcomes of it's development is the promotion of standards based browsers. It just seemed unlikely to me that the URL checking in particular got by the development team.
If you assume that they didn't realise that Windows was going to fail to correctly validate the URLs, then the Safari development team are kind of incompetent (as many windows advocates were saying). I don't personally believe they could be that stupid, so the other explanation is that they knew about it and used the information in the way I suggested.
As much as I don't even use it myself currently, I think Safari has a real opportunity here given the possible growth of the iPhone market and the interest in iPhone's from Windows users. As Daniel Eran points out in Roughly Drafted, even a sliver of the Windows browser market is an immense gain for Safari, and if the iPhone ships in the numbers people are expecting, the portion of browsing dominated by Safari could easily grow very, very, large indeed.
By positioning itself as the "standard" (and standards compliant), browser for the Web 2.0 experience they *could* literally crush IE's market share and take over the whole thing, (although I would not make such a heady prediction for certain). MS could still come out with an iPhone like device, or (horrors!) finally get behind some software standards themselves.
I am surprised that not a single slashdot comment that I can find is stating the obvious, which is that this is "wag the dog" kind of stuff.
The patch was released almost too fast, what's the odds that it was already written?
Think about it. Apple releases an essentially identical, standards compliant browser on both Mac and Windows. Then it turns out that it's a security problem on Windows because of the foolish way in which Windows does not validate the URL. They then release a patch less than 24 hours later that allows them even more media coverage, exactly on that point. At the same time they get kudos for responding so fast.
Now on the day of the release (well half a day anyway), the press is all bad. But then comes dozens of articles about the fact that the problem is actually with Windows, not with Safari itself. Apple then gets to point out this fact in spades by mentioning in the press release that it was "windows fault and if you were on the Mac there is no need to worry." How good is that?
To all those thinking Apple was embarrassed by the security flaws, your missing the bigger picture. A week from now no one will remember anything about that.
They will however remember that Apple fixed the "Windows problem" with Safari in less than 24 hours.
I think this whole exercise is a statement by Apple, a dig at windows specifically. They are not only showing Microsoft up by besting their best efforts in a browser, they are pointing out (again), that Windows is just less secure by design, as well as horribly non-compliant in terms of open standards. Even on the Mac, the main reason for Safari's existence has always been to promote the existence of open standards and open standard compliant browsers. What better illustration of that need could you get than this?
Exactly.
The day this goes "live" and the images are updated in real-time then you have something to worry about in terms of your licence plate being visible. It still won't be *illegal* though.
It also won't be a privacy violation because on that distant day (if it ever happens), we would already be living in a society of 24/7 surveillance. We know this because the only way such a system would work would be to have live webcams on every street-corner in the world feeding google maps, or at the very least millions of google camera trucks driving up and down streets all day.
In any case, everyone knows that when you go to a porn shop you are supposed to wear a dark trenchcoat, a fedora, and wraparound shades. Most also do a shoulder check to see if boss/wife/GF is around or any of their friends before entering.
Some of you folks should think a little more before writing.
A licence plates *entire* purpose is to prominently display the registration information (the fact that a car has a licence).
This is not only not "secret" or "personal" information, it's the exact opposite.
Information specifically made to be displayed at all times and acessible to all.
They don't even need to go that far. The key word is "commercial."
As far as I can see, Google Maps is a free information service. While the parent company does indeed make profit from advertising, that advertising can be deleted or ignored. Said advertising is not even on the same page, just a text link to access the advertising (on a separate page), if you wish to.
Simply providing pictures on the internet, that may or may not have people in incriminating or embarrassing information in them, is not the same thing as taking a picture of someone and using it for a "commercial" purpose IMO. This law was intended to stop you taking pics of people and using them in advertisements for your products, or otherwise mis-appropriating the person's image.
This discussion reminds me of those folks that put up holiday snaps on Flicker and atttach a notice about how no one can use the information contained within in any way shape or form without express written consent from the original snap taker. A vain hope at best.
These sorts of things are covered by rational laws, not by an individuals weepy assertion that they feel "violated" or that they don't *want* to let other people see or use their image. Fair use has to be considered, always.
Humans should realise that they simply do not have the right to control how the other humans see them, especially in public places with no expectation of privacy. All you can really do is keep your private things at home, present your best face to the world and hope for the best, as has always been the case.
The guy who wrote this Giz article must be Dvorak's kid or something. What a total load of negative crap. It's also kind of wrong.
... it's not. It's a communicator. It's just a phone that does all the internet communication as well. You can expect it to get things like video conferencing in the future, or to act as your personalised identifier/key/wallet perhaps, because *those* are the kind of apps that make sense for such a device. If you want a "kitchen sink" portable computer, check out Windows Mobile or get a Linux machine and code away to your hearts content.
Yes, Web 2.0 apps are all you can do for now, so what? Is not this device the absolute perfect Web 2.0 platform? What other kind of "killer app" could there be that needs access to graphics frameworks on the device? Possibly the author is thinking of a million crappy shareware games, or one of those things that changes the interface to make it work in some silly way that ten people want it to (as opposed to the rest of the world).
The article is also purposely misleading. Some of the points made (as questions) are already answered in the press, the very press that Giz is supposed to be a part of.
For instance you *can* have AJAX apps that reside on the phone itself, they don't need to be in constant communication with the web host and the person who wrote the article should know that. Also, let's make no mention of DashCode and widgets even though they were announced at the same event. You will be able to store some data locally, and you will have access to multi-touch. All of this has been covered already if the author was truly doing his research.
It's pretty clear to me that the iPhone is perfectly positioned to be a runaway success. It's the web 2.0 stuff that everyone has been talking about for ages. If they announced it six months ago, not as a smart phone but as a "Portable Web 2.0 interface device" it would still be the same device but the "reporters" at Giz and all their high school buddies would be falling all over themselves with praise for the thing.
If it was positioned as a UMPC or even a PDA, the argument for outside development of core applications makes sense, but the thing is
Lastly, does anyone really think that if a company came up with a "killer app" especially in the form of a widget, that Apple would shun them or something? Currently, widgets can be installed on your desktop right from Safari and there are several excellent choices that would complement the iPhone very nicely. Even if Apple initially disallows this behaviour for the iPhone, does anyone think that these will not eventually find their way onto it if they are good enough and actually usefull?
If the iPhone was totally open, you would see Linux addicts trying to install OpenOffice on it, ridiculously large graphically intensive FPS games that slow the entire Phone to a halt, and of course spyware installed through the browser to rip off that goldmine of personal information stored on it. It's likely that if the phone actually rang in the middle of Joe average coders FPS, he wouldn't have coded the game properly enough to suspend itself gracefully either, and that would kill the one "killer app" they have now, which is the phone itself.
The only surprising this about this article is that the author didn't compound his errors by arguing that it should be Java compatible as well.
perhaps you are using it on 10.4.8?
I will reply to all six (snarky) responses at the same time and use this one (being as it's generally more polite than the others)...:-)
The reason I was surprised by this is, (as I clearly stated in my post), I have never purchased a tune from iTunes and therefore never had the opportunity to do a "GetInfo" on one of the files. I have been using Macs almost as long as they have been around and certainly know how to access information in this way.
You are all however completely wrong in regards how "discoverable" this information is.
The legal requirement I am referring to is that the user has to be told that their personal information is being recorded and placed in the file, there is simply no way around that. To say that this information is discoverable by using GetInfo is to say that by closely examining the properties of the file one can determine that it contains secret information. That is all well and good but it doesn't fulfill the requirement of the kinds of laws that I referred to.
As I stated, I have been an Mac (and Windows) user for about 20 years now and am currently a Mac technician. However, that doesn't mean I do a GetInfo on every file that crosses my desktop; why the heck would I?. I would only even bother to check if I wanted to reassign the program it opens with or more typically if I wanted to check the file size or date. Anyone, even a tech person, could reasonably buy tracks from iTunes for weeks without happening to do a GetInfo on one of the tracks. I don't remember ever having a reason to do a GetInfo on any of the files I ripped from my CD's into my iTunes at home either.
The test is also whether an average person would be aware of their personal information being placed in the file and clearly they would not. I maintain computers at work for many average, non-technical users that have themselves been using Macs every working day for upwards of 10 years. More often than not, theses folks are very surprised when I show them how to do a GetInfo on a file. A GetInfo is just NOT obvious to the average user at all regardless of how familiar it is to you or me.
The only requirement is for the vendor to simply tell the user at some point, most likely the point of purchase, that their name and email is being recorded. It's not difficult to do, a simple notice on their website or a EULA type click through would cover their ass, and I think it highly likely you will see some kind of notification added to the process or the website in the near future.
This is indeed a serious point, and one obfuscated by all the hoopla that the author of this article (and others), is creating over other, non-issues.
It's a basic tenet of any sane, decent, information privacy legislation and (I believe already the law in Europe), that you cannot embed or record people's personal data in a "secret" way. If a person is buying a product that has their personal information embedded in it, they have to *know* this is the case.
I (like many people), was originally shocked to find out the user name and email is embedded in the file being unaware that this was in fact *always* the case. Despite all the folks here pointing out that it was always the case, how many regular users of iTunes and iPods are aware of that? If it isn't commonly understood, then it's as good as secret.
It seems to me that if the embedding is not presented to the user at the point of purchase in a clear, obvious, "in your face" EULA type of way, then Apple should be in violation of European law or at the very least going completely against the spirit of personal data protection and privacy laws. Having never purchased on iTunes, I am not aware if this is the case or not, but the large number of people that were not aware of the practice suggests that it is not advertised much at all.
The point is that a person has to be able to maintain their own privacy if they need or want to. If a corporation is secretly (or even non-obviously) embedding personal data in a file, the user has to know it's in there in order to be able to manage or maintain their private information. Clearly, most users of iTunes had and have no idea that their personal information is being stored and may be at risk and no idea that they should have been protecting it.
Your really missing the point here; possibly because of a lack of knowledge about BBC, the UK, and the history behind all of this. I know I am making a big assumption there as to your background, but your comments make no sense to me except as being made by an uninformed observer.
... the point is that circumvention of DRM is illegal and not something within the technical capabilities of the average user. Your suggestion would also turn all users into criminals and pirates.
The BBC is a public service and does not operate on the same standard corporate level that you seem to think it does. That's why they have a charter from the government (quoted many times in the article).
To refute your formulation of the articles main talking points specifically:
1st point - In regards DRM "not working"
2nd point - BBC users and UK citizens absolutely have the right to free content from the BBC. It's written in the charter as the article says.
3rd point - Viewing an internet video feed, and using the same material as part of an essay, report, study, artwork etc. (all under fair use), are two different things. The second one requires the ability to copy.
First off, Nicola Tesla was not insane. Secondly, he *did* do this, many times in fact.
Personally, I am a bit miffed at the MIT folks for not giving credit where credit is due. This is the second article I have seen in the last month or two on this topic and they hardly even mention the fact that this is a key Tesla invention that was in fact accomplished by him and repeatably demonstrated. To read the articles one would think that the folks at MIT just sat down last week and invented this all by themselves when it is simply not true.
It *is* the case that Tesla is a "fan favorite" of the same type of folks that like to believe in free energy machines and it *is* the case that his *commercial* attempt at providing wireless power was never finished, but the technique and the methodology behind it was sound and I think even patented by Tesla.
To ignore his achievements, simply because many years after his death the man has gained some tertiary association with the lunatic fringe is a bit outrageous to my mind. The particular article referenced here even goes out of it's way to say that Tesla tried wireless power but "failed" (even though they mention off-handedly that it was only through lack of funds, not through any technical problems).
Tesla invented this technique, plain and simple. And those articles that fail to mention it are doing history a great dis-service.