Maybe you feel secure keeping all your info on someone else's machine that you have no control over....I myself do not.
The iPhone is a machine you have no control over.
I want my phone to be tied to --at most-- to my desktop and nothing else.
The iPhone is tied to your carrier and Apple. You have no control over what it does, how it does it, who it transmits your data to, or whether it does so securely.
As for storing my data on a network server, I have no problem with that as long as it's encrypted, and that's the way Google has handled sensitive and personal information in the past (e.g. Google Browser Sync). Furthermore, it sounds like that, in contrast to the iPhone, the Google Phone will be programmable, so you can probably add your own apps.
Furthermore, it's likely that the desktop synchronization will evolve out of iSync and iTunes.
The fact that Jobs has been lying about why Apple made the iPhone so restrictive also speaks for itself.
Of course, Apple will likely offer some form of network-based synchronization at some point (probably at least to.Mac and maybe to Google); that doesn't change what I was saying. A programmable, network-centric Google phone is still a much better choice than Apple's proprietary, iPod-like iPhone.
Windows Vista can be run for at least a year without being activated, a serious end-run around one of Microsoft's key anti-piracy measures,
That's no accident, that's more like the time period to get you hooked on the drug even though you know it's bad for you. They figure that once you've been using it for a year, you'll pay.
Whatever this is, it's gotta be better than Windows Mobile, Palm, Symbian, or iPhone.
Why is it better than iPhone you ask? Because, apart from being one of the most restrictive and proprietary phones around, the iPhone has the outmoded usage model that the user wants to tie his phone to some desktop machine. I don't want to sync with a desktop, I want to sync with a network service.
Orion's Arm is a bold new shared worldbuilding and creative writing project, creating and exploring a new vision of the future of humanity and other sentient beings, ten thousand years hence.
Our goal is to create a dramatic far-future universe that is internally consistent and abides as much as possible with the accepted facts and theories in the physical, biological, and social sciences. Thus matter cannot travel faster than light, matter and energy are conserved, no evolved humanoid aliens have been discovered, future ultratech social issues are likely to be very different to those of today, and so on. We embrace speculative ideas like drexlerian assemblers, mind uploads, posthuman intelligences, femtotech, magnetic monopoles, wormholes, as it is proposed that future sciences, technologies, and developments will make these possible. And we attempt a logical explanation for even the most fantastic-seeming elements in OA. We aim to paint a future that is plausible at every level, from the scientific to the social to the psychological.
They're not going to get everything right, but they think about and discuss physical plasubility.
As far as I can tell, Windows users are just as fussy: every place I've ever worked that has bought Dell computers with Windows preinstalled has blown away Windows and installed their own version. But the fact that Windows was pre-installed meant that the hardware was supported by Windows and the drivers existed.
With Linux, the problem is not about which version of Linux Dell ships, it's that they ship some version of Linux at all. Why? Because if they do it right, it means that they have selected Linux-compatible hardware and guarantee that it works in at least some configuration.
So, Dell, please pick a fairly recent but stable version of Linux and ship machines that are preinstalled with it. It doesn't matter whether you pick Fedora or Ubuntu or SuSE, just pick one and ship it. Pay some attention to required drivers (it shouldn't depend on proprietary drivers even if you can find a legal loophole).
I really don't give a damn whether you kill yourself or whether you believe in hell or rot in one. But I don't want you to put my life at risk through your irresponsible use of fossil fuels.
I really wish we could de-politicize the whole process,
I really wish we wouldn't. When an ill-conceived public policy threatens the lives of billions of people, that is something that is political.
What we should de-politicize is questions like terrorism (a law enforcement matter that can be handled with regular police work), abortion (a medical issue), and the president's sex life (of concern only to his wife and mistress).
I have come to learn that these past carbon dioxide concentrations have been documented in peer-reviewed research journals:
Yes, large CO2 concentrations have existed and are compatible with animal life. What are you trying to show? They still cause sea levels to rise and a total disruption of current climate patterns with grave consequences for human populations.
While I am concerned about the future of our planet and our species' place upon it, I am growing increasingly sceptical of the wild claims surrounding a looming global warming catastrophe.
I don't see why you are "concerned". Reducing fossil fuel usage only has upsides as far as I can tell: it's good for the economy and it's good for the environment.
The case against runaway global warming appears to be substantial.
So what? Given the cost and consequences, even a slight possibility of a global warming catastrophe should be sufficient reason to act.
People don't have to prove that emitting massive quantities of CO2 is dangerous, people should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it's safe before continuing to do so.
That is not true. Just because something is non-linear and chaotic does not necessarily mean that you cannot restore it to state A once it's moved from state A to state B.
That's theoretically correct, but irrelevant here. CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere for centuries and there is no way to "scrub" them, so even without non-linearities or hysteresis or feedback mechanisms, we will have to live with global warming for centuries to come.
'As commercial software products have matured, it no longer makes sense for organizations to develop software from scratch. Accounting packages, enterprise resource packages, customer relationship management systems are the order of the day: stable, well-proven and easily available.
Computer science isn't about educating people to become programmers, and has neer been. If the Britisch Computing Society has viewed itself as a society of programmers, or for programmers, that simply means that they have nothing to do with, or say about, computer science.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you feel secure keeping all your info on someone else's machine that you have no control over....I myself do not.
The iPhone is a machine you have no control over.
I want my phone to be tied to --at most-- to my desktop and nothing else.
The iPhone is tied to your carrier and Apple. You have no control over what it does, how it does it, who it transmits your data to, or whether it does so securely.
As for storing my data on a network server, I have no problem with that as long as it's encrypted, and that's the way Google has handled sensitive and personal information in the past (e.g. Google Browser Sync). Furthermore, it sounds like that, in contrast to the iPhone, the Google Phone will be programmable, so you can probably add your own apps.
Dr. Furter: I've built tomorrow's soldier. Well Brad and Janet, what do you think of him?
... He carries the Charles Atlas seal of approval.
Janet: Well, I don't like men with too many muscles.
Dr. Furter: I didn't make him for you!
Face it, the only two products that Microsoft really has are MS Windows and MS Office; all other Microsoft efforts are merely "cute".
I suppose the difference to Google is that Windows and Office are under siege and rapidly becoming obsolete.
I'm amazed at how much of an opinion you have on a device that isn't even been released yet,
6 919
.Mac and maybe to Google); that doesn't change what I was saying. A programmable, network-centric Google phone is still a much better choice than Apple's proprietary, iPod-like iPhone.
Apple's own materials tell us that it has desktop synchronization and no third party applications:
http://www.apple.com/iphone/
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=3
Furthermore, it's likely that the desktop synchronization will evolve out of iSync and iTunes.
The fact that Jobs has been lying about why Apple made the iPhone so restrictive also speaks for itself.
Of course, Apple will likely offer some form of network-based synchronization at some point (probably at least to
Windows Vista can be run for at least a year without being activated, a serious end-run around one of Microsoft's key anti-piracy measures,
That's no accident, that's more like the time period to get you hooked on the drug even though you know it's bad for you. They figure that once you've been using it for a year, you'll pay.
Whatever this is, it's gotta be better than Windows Mobile, Palm, Symbian, or iPhone.
Why is it better than iPhone you ask? Because, apart from being one of the most restrictive and proprietary phones around, the iPhone has the outmoded usage model that the user wants to tie his phone to some desktop machine. I don't want to sync with a desktop, I want to sync with a network service.
They're not going to get everything right, but they think about and discuss physical plasubility.
As far as I can tell, Windows users are just as fussy: every place I've ever worked that has bought Dell computers with Windows preinstalled has blown away Windows and installed their own version. But the fact that Windows was pre-installed meant that the hardware was supported by Windows and the drivers existed.
With Linux, the problem is not about which version of Linux Dell ships, it's that they ship some version of Linux at all. Why? Because if they do it right, it means that they have selected Linux-compatible hardware and guarantee that it works in at least some configuration.
So, Dell, please pick a fairly recent but stable version of Linux and ship machines that are preinstalled with it. It doesn't matter whether you pick Fedora or Ubuntu or SuSE, just pick one and ship it. Pay some attention to required drivers (it shouldn't depend on proprietary drivers even if you can find a legal loophole).
That's all we ask.
I really don't give a damn whether you kill yourself or whether you believe in hell or rot in one. But I don't want you to put my life at risk through your irresponsible use of fossil fuels.
I really wish we could de-politicize the whole process,
I really wish we wouldn't. When an ill-conceived public policy threatens the lives of billions of people, that is something that is political.
What we should de-politicize is questions like terrorism (a law enforcement matter that can be handled with regular police work), abortion (a medical issue), and the president's sex life (of concern only to his wife and mistress).
I have come to learn that these past carbon dioxide concentrations have been documented in peer-reviewed research journals:
Yes, large CO2 concentrations have existed and are compatible with animal life. What are you trying to show? They still cause sea levels to rise and a total disruption of current climate patterns with grave consequences for human populations.
While I am concerned about the future of our planet and our species' place upon it, I am growing increasingly sceptical of the wild claims surrounding a looming global warming catastrophe.
I don't see why you are "concerned". Reducing fossil fuel usage only has upsides as far as I can tell: it's good for the economy and it's good for the environment.
The case against runaway global warming appears to be substantial.
So what? Given the cost and consequences, even a slight possibility of a global warming catastrophe should be sufficient reason to act.
People don't have to prove that emitting massive quantities of CO2 is dangerous, people should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it's safe before continuing to do so.
That is not true. Just because something is non-linear and chaotic does not necessarily mean that you cannot restore it to state A once it's moved from state A to state B.
That's theoretically correct, but irrelevant here. CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere for centuries and there is no way to "scrub" them, so even without non-linearities or hysteresis or feedback mechanisms, we will have to live with global warming for centuries to come.
'As commercial software products have matured, it no longer makes sense for organizations to develop software from scratch. Accounting packages, enterprise resource packages, customer relationship management systems are the order of the day: stable, well-proven and easily available. Computer science isn't about educating people to become programmers, and has neer been. If the Britisch Computing Society has viewed itself as a society of programmers, or for programmers, that simply means that they have nothing to do with, or say about, computer science.