It's quite telling that Palm has such low confidence in its ability to provide a quality solution of their own (Palm Desktop) that they feel they have to resort to that kludge in the first place.
They have decided that a kludgy, constantly breaking, USB standards violating solution is superior to anything they could cook up in house.
This is probably more of a press battle than anything else and Palm is playing it pretty smart by staying in the public eye with this. Apple looks bad for deliberately locking them out and Palm looks technically savvy for coming up with another workaround.
Palm is just looking like a bunch of amateurs constantly having to fix their product. They can blame Apple all they want, but as a customer, you're going to come away with "this Palm product is a load of shit, it keeps breaking its connection to iTunes".
Unless Palm can make their product work consistently, it's going to be the loser here. It's just like if your Internet connection keeps going down. Even if it's not your ISP's fault, but the fault of some upstream provider, you're not going to just say, "well, it's not their fault, so I guess it's OK".
And Palm might be able to accomplish just that. Their update now reports itself, in violation of the USB standard, as being an Apple product. Very, very amateur, but sufficiently invisible to the user that, unless Apple is willing to force firmware updates on every iPod/iPhone owner, they may not be able to break Palm syncing without potentially breaking syncing with legitimate iPods.
Which makes me think that if Apple is unsuccessful in getting Palm to stop using it's vender ID, they will do just that, and add some form of encryption between the iPod and iTunes for authentication.
It's sad to see the once mighty Palm fall to being so pathetically amateur.
"What about the other 95%?" Over the years I became an old and bitter sysadm... you know what ? They just need to do what the 5% did: Put their asses in a chair and Read The Fucking Manual... and read again, and again until they understand the subject.
That's not what they did.
First, they were born/nurtured in such a way to have above average technical aptitude.
Second, they were interested enough in how computers work to tinker and learn and gain a broad base of knowledge about their computer and OS.
Only then did they "put their asses in a chair and Read The Fucking Manual... and read again, and again until they understand the subject."
If you expect the 95% who did not go through the first two parts to skip right over into the third part, you're in dire need of taking your ass out of the chair and meeting some Real Fucking People.
No, I'm not user friendly, I do not need to be... people are asking me for help anyway.
Do what I do. Tell them, "yes, there's a way but it's rather complex. Do you want me to explain it?" The answer is almost always "no". Because they really don't want you to explain it, they want you to do it. If they say yes, you'll probably be asked to stop in less than 60 seconds.
Ok, that covers the <5% of users who can set up and maintain a backup systems based on rsync. What about the other 95%?
As an interface to set up a backup system for a moderately adept geek with sufficient focus to set up and maintain a recurring rsync backup, an above average grasp of the layout of their filesystem, and the presence of mind to alter their rsync script as their computer changes over time, rsync is extremely powerful. For everyone else, it's next to useless.
Why do people try to pigeonhole Apple into a one-or-the-other-ware company? They sell both.
Apple's "secret ingredient" is not the software they put into their hardware, and it's not the hardware they put their software on, it's the quality of the combination of the two. They sell a system, and are one of the very few companies left who still do.
Having gone through Boot Camp myself (Not in China mind you) I highly recommend it as a means of turning useless people into productive citizens.
Having gone through Boot Camp myself, I have to say that I don't find myself more productive running Windows than Mac OS X. Quite the opposite in fact.
As for being useless, I'm pretty much equally useless on either OS...
2, Tell irresponsible parents that it's not their fault (which actually is).
Do explain how it's the parents' fault? It's not like the parents were trying to get their kids addicted to the Internet. They (like any responsible parent should), gave their children access to the Internet. That the children became addicted to it is part of the child's psychological response. There's no way a parent can be expected to anticipate this and have the training to be able to redirect their kid's attention before the signs of addiction become apparent.
It's like saying the parents are to blame if their kid gets the chicken pox. Sure, if they deliberately exposed their kid to it, but letting their kids go to school and play with other kids isn't something you can really blame them for.
With bandwith use increasing like crazy, who's to say this isn't the alternative to raising rates?
And who's to say there's not a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Really, when I word it like that, any absurd notion gains a certain level of legitimacy, such as:
Not that I like it, but I'd prefer this to a more expensive cable bill.
Because somehow Comcast doesn't want more money.
Comcast is going to charge what they consider their optimal rate, no matter what other income they have. If you win a lottery that gives you $1,000/month for life, are you going to tell your boss you don't want a raise? Probably not. Do you further think that Comcast is more honest and generous than you are?
The real problem is that in many markets there are still only limited choices for broadband. If you have to choose between DNS redirection or dial-up, what would you do?
I'd stop dismissing harmful activities as, "that's just business 101 stuff", for starters.
Sorry, I'm not understanding from where your confusion stems.
It stems from the fact that you went from "it didn't work for me" to conclude, presenting it as fact, that it was because Apple doesn't want people making their own ringtones.
I know you were being honest, it's just the logical leap you made coupled with the fact that you didn't say something like, "probably because Apple doesn't want..." but instead, "my understanding is that...". Both are wrong, but one pretends to have actual knowledge.
The CNET article is probably true, but is from back before there was a proper way to put custom ringtones on an iPhone.
For quite some time now, though, Apple absolutely and under no uncertain terms allows you to make your own ringtones for your iPhone. If you're on a Mac, open GarageBand and notice the "iPhone Ringtone" option. If you're not, open iTunes and notice the "Store -> Create Ringtone..." menu item. If you do it through iTunes, you have to pay for it, and it's only available for some songs (the limitations and the charge are both absurd, but it's a music label thing). If you do it through GarageBand, it's absolutely free, and works in any non-DRM format that QuickTime supports (either natively or through a codec plug-in).
School is there for people to learn. Schools should provide the things people want.
Furthermore, sports provides valuable and constructive activities for the student body, both those that participate and those that attend the events.
You want to play sports in school? Then YOUR family should pay for it, not mine.
Your family can pay for it now in pennies in the form of sports programs, or later in dollars in the form of hospitals and prisons.
Re:Don't need to jailbreak for wallpaper/ring tone
on
iPhone 3GS Finally Hacked
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
How did you go from, "one of the first things I tried was to make a ring tone, and it didn't work (the mthod above) until I switched to apple lossless" to "You have to use Apple lossless now. My understanding is that they disabled the AAC method because they don't want people making their own ringtones."?
Not to mention the fact that you can make your own ringtones both from within iTunes and from within GarageBand.
As a former C-64 hacker, let me tell you one thing: the fact that it could but display 40 columns of text was a common complaint about its suitability as a business computer. In those same eighties, people who had to deal with large amounts of text used 80-column displays, as on Commodore's CBM range of business computers, or on the CP/M machines.
People complaining about something is different from "Thirty years of human-computer interaction knowledge has taught us that the minimum resolution for 80-column text is 640 pixels wide".
So, why don't you stop digging any further? The RDF is not going to change history for you, no matter how much you wish it would.
The history that the C64 was the greatest selling computer of all time? That history?
Sort of makes your assertion of minimum requirements a bit silly. The C64 didn't just sell, but it outsold every other computer ever.
No. The screen is too small. Thirty years of human-computer interaction knowledge has taught us that the minimum resolution for 80-column text is 640 pixels wide.
Um, the top selling computer of all time, Commodore 64, had specs far below your "minimum".
And there are people using the iPhone right now in a manner that violates your "minimum". How fucking stupid do you have to be to believe a fact (that you just pulled out of your ass) is true, when there are people violating at this very moment? Seriously, how stupid are you?
You can try to argue that the Jesusphone is too brilliant to throw away something that was obvious by the 1980s[1], but it just makes you look like a stupid fanboi.
The two words I've highlighted show who is acting like the "fanboy".
All I've said is that the iPhone can be used to browse the Internet. OH NOES!!!
[1] Those same 1980s which were dominated by the C64. Idiot.
It's not an assumption. Vehicle analogy warning: a little 12HP engine is great for a commuter bike like the Honda CBF125, but it is impossible to win the MotoGP with it.
Your analogy is an assumption. It's an extremely reasonably assumption, but an assumption nonetheless.
Parent is right. I have seen the Jesusphone in action, and for casual browsing it is OK, but the screen is too small to present readable text for long periods
You just go ahead and believe that. Meanwhile, I and countless others will continue to do the this thing you seem to think is impossible.
Saying you've "seen it in action" shows that you really don't have any actual experience using the device in the manner you're criticizing. At most, you played with one at an Apple store, or took a quick peek of a friend's iPhone, and judged the screen too small.
In other words, you have no experience with the topic at hand, yet you somehow believe that your imagination of how things are is more valid than my actual experience is. Astonishing!
You're right, I've never used an iPhone. I do, however know how small a 3.5 inch screen is. I don't care how high of a resolution is has, it cannot, in any way, be used for anything but extreme casual browsing.
In other words, your assumptions about the usability of the iPhone are superior to the actual experiences of millions of iPhone users.
You obviously never used an n810, which has well over double the resolution of an iPhone.
Actually, the N810's resolution, which is greater than the iPhone's, is not "more than double". I'm not talking about screen dimensions, but resolution (dpi). I do realize the term is more ambiguously used in the computer realm, so I'm not knocking you for misunderstanding what I wrote.
Regardless, the iPhone doesn't have to have the highest resolution in order to have a "very high resolution" (which is what I wrote). Very few displays, even on high end notebooks and desktop units, have a resolution greater than the iPhone.
Not saying one is better than the other, but the resolution of the iPhone really isn't one of the things to gloat about.
Right. because there is no way malware could click 'yes'. Hate to break it to you, but there is all kinds of software out there to do this.
And malware can't just include the Norton Removal Tool and run that? If it works for Norton's tool (the captcha) then it would work just as well being part of the install.
Besides, both McAfee and AVG (and even Norton!) include uninstallers in their installs. The only difference is that Norton's uninstaller is the only one that is significantly prone to failure.
An iphone[sic] for general browsing? You're kidding right? There is no way a device with a 3.5 inch display could be used for serious browsing.
You've clearly never used an iPhone. The 3.5" screen is very high resolution, so the text is quite sharp and readable at smaller sizes. Safari's ability to zoom the page (scaling everything, not just increasing the font size), its ability to zoom to specific sections of a web page, and the overall speed and smoothness of the multitouch interface makes it a very viable web browsing device.
Coupled with the fact that it's always with you (pocketable, which is not possible a larger display), and always connected increases its utility.
I'm not saying a larger screen wouldn't make web browsing better, but to say (as you did) that a 3.5 inch screen can't be used for serious browsing is demonstrably false.
Slashdot Mirror
It's quite telling that Palm has such low confidence in its ability to provide a quality solution of their own (Palm Desktop) that they feel they have to resort to that kludge in the first place.
They have decided that a kludgy, constantly breaking, USB standards violating solution is superior to anything they could cook up in house.
This is probably more of a press battle than anything else and Palm is playing it pretty smart by staying in the public eye with this. Apple looks bad for deliberately locking them out and Palm looks technically savvy for coming up with another workaround.
Palm is just looking like a bunch of amateurs constantly having to fix their product. They can blame Apple all they want, but as a customer, you're going to come away with "this Palm product is a load of shit, it keeps breaking its connection to iTunes".
Unless Palm can make their product work consistently, it's going to be the loser here. It's just like if your Internet connection keeps going down. Even if it's not your ISP's fault, but the fault of some upstream provider, you're not going to just say, "well, it's not their fault, so I guess it's OK".
And Palm might be able to accomplish just that. Their update now reports itself, in violation of the USB standard, as being an Apple product. Very, very amateur, but sufficiently invisible to the user that, unless Apple is willing to force firmware updates on every iPod/iPhone owner, they may not be able to break Palm syncing without potentially breaking syncing with legitimate iPods.
Which makes me think that if Apple is unsuccessful in getting Palm to stop using it's vender ID, they will do just that, and add some form of encryption between the iPod and iTunes for authentication.
It's sad to see the once mighty Palm fall to being so pathetically amateur.
"What about the other 95%?" Over the years I became an old and bitter sysadm... you know what ? They just need to do what the 5% did: Put their asses in a chair and Read The Fucking Manual... and read again, and again until they understand the subject.
That's not what they did.
First, they were born/nurtured in such a way to have above average technical aptitude.
Second, they were interested enough in how computers work to tinker and learn and gain a broad base of knowledge about their computer and OS.
Only then did they "put their asses in a chair and Read The Fucking Manual... and read again, and again until they understand the subject."
If you expect the 95% who did not go through the first two parts to skip right over into the third part, you're in dire need of taking your ass out of the chair and meeting some Real Fucking People.
No, I'm not user friendly, I do not need to be... people are asking me for help anyway.
Do what I do. Tell them, "yes, there's a way but it's rather complex. Do you want me to explain it?" The answer is almost always "no". Because they really don't want you to explain it, they want you to do it. If they say yes, you'll probably be asked to stop in less than 60 seconds.
On the other hand, if you thought you could ask on /. you probably match this description...
If you had to ask on /., you already don't match the description.
rsync.
Ok, that covers the <5% of users who can set up and maintain a backup systems based on rsync. What about the other 95%?
As an interface to set up a backup system for a moderately adept geek with sufficient focus to set up and maintain a recurring rsync backup, an above average grasp of the layout of their filesystem, and the presence of mind to alter their rsync script as their computer changes over time, rsync is extremely powerful. For everyone else, it's next to useless.
...citation needed.
Just post it to facebook, the police will take care of the citation...
Maybe because apple IS a hardware company.
Why do people try to pigeonhole Apple into a one-or-the-other-ware company? They sell both.
Apple's "secret ingredient" is not the software they put into their hardware, and it's not the hardware they put their software on, it's the quality of the combination of the two. They sell a system, and are one of the very few companies left who still do.
Having gone through Boot Camp myself (Not in China mind you) I highly recommend it as a means of turning useless people into productive citizens.
Having gone through Boot Camp myself, I have to say that I don't find myself more productive running Windows than Mac OS X. Quite the opposite in fact.
As for being useless, I'm pretty much equally useless on either OS...
2, Tell irresponsible parents that it's not their fault (which actually is).
Do explain how it's the parents' fault? It's not like the parents were trying to get their kids addicted to the Internet. They (like any responsible parent should), gave their children access to the Internet. That the children became addicted to it is part of the child's psychological response. There's no way a parent can be expected to anticipate this and have the training to be able to redirect their kid's attention before the signs of addiction become apparent.
It's like saying the parents are to blame if their kid gets the chicken pox. Sure, if they deliberately exposed their kid to it, but letting their kids go to school and play with other kids isn't something you can really blame them for.
All the "grinding" is done before level 30. At 30, you move on to Carousel.
With bandwith use increasing like crazy, who's to say this isn't the alternative to raising rates?
And who's to say there's not a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Really, when I word it like that, any absurd notion gains a certain level of legitimacy, such as:
Not that I like it, but I'd prefer this to a more expensive cable bill.
Because somehow Comcast doesn't want more money.
Comcast is going to charge what they consider their optimal rate, no matter what other income they have. If you win a lottery that gives you $1,000/month for life, are you going to tell your boss you don't want a raise? Probably not. Do you further think that Comcast is more honest and generous than you are?
And who's to blame for that? You and your husband John, that's who Jane Q. Public, that's who.
That's just Business 101 stuff. ...
The real problem is that in many markets there are still only limited choices for broadband. If you have to choose between DNS redirection or dial-up, what would you do?
I'd stop dismissing harmful activities as, "that's just business 101 stuff", for starters.
Sorry, I'm not understanding from where your confusion stems.
It stems from the fact that you went from "it didn't work for me" to conclude, presenting it as fact, that it was because Apple doesn't want people making their own ringtones.
I know you were being honest, it's just the logical leap you made coupled with the fact that you didn't say something like, "probably because Apple doesn't want..." but instead, "my understanding is that...". Both are wrong, but one pretends to have actual knowledge.
The CNET article is probably true, but is from back before there was a proper way to put custom ringtones on an iPhone.
For quite some time now, though, Apple absolutely and under no uncertain terms allows you to make your own ringtones for your iPhone. If you're on a Mac, open GarageBand and notice the "iPhone Ringtone" option. If you're not, open iTunes and notice the "Store -> Create Ringtone..." menu item. If you do it through iTunes, you have to pay for it, and it's only available for some songs (the limitations and the charge are both absurd, but it's a music label thing). If you do it through GarageBand, it's absolutely free, and works in any non-DRM format that QuickTime supports (either natively or through a codec plug-in).
School is there to learn
School is there for people to learn. Schools should provide the things people want.
Furthermore, sports provides valuable and constructive activities for the student body, both those that participate and those that attend the events.
You want to play sports in school? Then YOUR family should pay for it, not mine.
Your family can pay for it now in pennies in the form of sports programs, or later in dollars in the form of hospitals and prisons.
How did you go from, "one of the first things I tried was to make a ring tone, and it didn't work (the mthod above) until I switched to apple lossless" to "You have to use Apple lossless now. My understanding is that they disabled the AAC method because they don't want people making their own ringtones."?
Not to mention the fact that you can make your own ringtones both from within iTunes and from within GarageBand.
As a former C-64 hacker, let me tell you one thing: the fact that it could but display 40 columns of text was a common complaint about its suitability as a business computer. In those same eighties, people who had to deal with large amounts of text used 80-column displays, as on Commodore's CBM range of business computers, or on the CP/M machines.
People complaining about something is different from "Thirty years of human-computer interaction knowledge has taught us that the minimum resolution for 80-column text is 640 pixels wide".
So, why don't you stop digging any further? The RDF is not going to change history for you, no matter how much you wish it would.
The history that the C64 was the greatest selling computer of all time? That history?
Sort of makes your assertion of minimum requirements a bit silly. The C64 didn't just sell, but it outsold every other computer ever.
No. The screen is too small. Thirty years of human-computer interaction knowledge has taught us that the minimum resolution for 80-column text is 640 pixels wide.
Um, the top selling computer of all time, Commodore 64, had specs far below your "minimum".
And there are people using the iPhone right now in a manner that violates your "minimum". How fucking stupid do you have to be to believe a fact (that you just pulled out of your ass) is true, when there are people violating at this very moment? Seriously, how stupid are you?
You can try to argue that the Jesusphone is too brilliant to throw away something that was obvious by the 1980s[1], but it just makes you look like a stupid fanboi.
The two words I've highlighted show who is acting like the "fanboy".
All I've said is that the iPhone can be used to browse the Internet. OH NOES!!!
[1] Those same 1980s which were dominated by the C64. Idiot.
It's not an assumption. Vehicle analogy warning: a little 12HP engine is great for a commuter bike like the Honda CBF125, but it is impossible to win the MotoGP with it.
Your analogy is an assumption. It's an extremely reasonably assumption, but an assumption nonetheless.
Parent is right. I have seen the Jesusphone in action, and for casual browsing it is OK, but the screen is too small to present readable text for long periods
You just go ahead and believe that. Meanwhile, I and countless others will continue to do the this thing you seem to think is impossible.
Saying you've "seen it in action" shows that you really don't have any actual experience using the device in the manner you're criticizing. At most, you played with one at an Apple store, or took a quick peek of a friend's iPhone, and judged the screen too small.
In other words, you have no experience with the topic at hand, yet you somehow believe that your imagination of how things are is more valid than my actual experience is. Astonishing!
You're right, I've never used an iPhone. I do, however know how small a 3.5 inch screen is. I don't care how high of a resolution is has, it cannot, in any way, be used for anything but extreme casual browsing.
In other words, your assumptions about the usability of the iPhone are superior to the actual experiences of millions of iPhone users.
Interesting...
You obviously never used an n810, which has well over double the resolution of an iPhone.
Actually, the N810's resolution, which is greater than the iPhone's, is not "more than double". I'm not talking about screen dimensions, but resolution (dpi). I do realize the term is more ambiguously used in the computer realm, so I'm not knocking you for misunderstanding what I wrote.
Regardless, the iPhone doesn't have to have the highest resolution in order to have a "very high resolution" (which is what I wrote). Very few displays, even on high end notebooks and desktop units, have a resolution greater than the iPhone.
Not saying one is better than the other, but the resolution of the iPhone really isn't one of the things to gloat about.
Who was gloating?
Right. because there is no way malware could click 'yes'. Hate to break it to you, but there is all kinds of software out there to do this.
And malware can't just include the Norton Removal Tool and run that? If it works for Norton's tool (the captcha) then it would work just as well being part of the install.
Besides, both McAfee and AVG (and even Norton!) include uninstallers in their installs. The only difference is that Norton's uninstaller is the only one that is significantly prone to failure.
An iphone[sic] for general browsing? You're kidding right? There is no way a device with a 3.5 inch display could be used for serious browsing.
You've clearly never used an iPhone. The 3.5" screen is very high resolution, so the text is quite sharp and readable at smaller sizes. Safari's ability to zoom the page (scaling everything, not just increasing the font size), its ability to zoom to specific sections of a web page, and the overall speed and smoothness of the multitouch interface makes it a very viable web browsing device.
Coupled with the fact that it's always with you (pocketable, which is not possible a larger display), and always connected increases its utility.
I'm not saying a larger screen wouldn't make web browsing better, but to say (as you did) that a 3.5 inch screen can't be used for serious browsing is demonstrably false.
I just noticed I left in the [1]. There was originally a footnote, but it sort of ruined the joke.
[1] Ceci n'est pas une footnote
No, no. MS....FTW !
Correct. No MS, FTW!