I don't believe this is really on the cards: a) Releasing spurious leaks to the press seems to be par for the course in business negotiations now. b) Adobe are desperate to somehow put the shitters up Apple, and get them to allow Flash on their phones. c) If this was legit it would be very unlikely to be leaked the way it has been.
>It amazed me that this was marked troll, but maybe the other guy did the same thing.
If only. Unfortunately every Apple thread attracts armies of partisan moderators from both sides, ready to promote or demote comments with no regard to whether they're interesting or insightful, just whether they seem to be pro or anti-Apple. It's encouraging to know that you follow the moderation guidelines, but there is a large group of Slashdot moderators that don't.
It isn't moronic at all. Slashdot doesn't control people's comments, but it does influence the discussion markedly with it's choice of stories and the way they're presented. Phantomfive is right, while a lot of the criticisms are well-founded, there is almost no objective discussion about Microsoft (and various other subjects) on this site, and the Borg graphic and 'M$' label are entirely consistent with that.
Nice conspiracy theory but probably false. Red Bull cola is one of few colas that contains coca leaf extracts, so it seems plausible that microscopic traces of the alkaloid might end up in the final product. Also, the six German states that the article refers to apparently don't agree with you that it's not enough to break laws, which would hardly be an acceptable trade off for the sake of attracting a few teenagers excited by the idea of taking narcotics.
I know Apple-hating always wins an applause around here, but your description of how things stand is a substantial (and deliberate) distortion. Apple acknowledged that approving Baby Shaker was a mistake, and quickly removed it from the store; Pocket God is only racist according to the most paranoid leftist point of view; shoot 'em ups are subject to the same rules of decency as any other app, and none of those available in the store seriously qualify as adult material. Third-party mail clients are banned for the very clear reason that Apple don't want programs in the app store that reproduce the iPhone's basic functions--you may not agree with the rule, but it isn't ambiguous or inconsistent as you describe.
Apple have made some well-publicised errors in their approvals process, but any company starting a new service and processing that volume of material would have made mistakes. I suspect you simply object in principle to Apple supervising the content on the iPhone, which I know is a commonly held view; but it is an entirely reasonable policy for Apple to take, to avoid genuinely wanton or malicious programs being available on their device. For people who want an unregulated system, there are other phones and platforms available.
People liking non-mainstream products doesn't bother me at all; I'd be thrilled if free software like Linux or Gimp were viable alternatives to the expensive industry standards. Part of the reason these products fail to match up, though, is the type of attitude I described before -- open-source fans are too preoccupied with their disapproval of large corporations to understand what's actually wrong with the open-source offerings. I'm not trying to flame, but I think your comments typify this kind of attitude -- you dislike Apple and their marketing strategy so much that you can't appreciate that, for all their censorship and iron-fisted control, they offer some extremely good products.
No, I don't own an iPhone personally; the part that bothers me is the endless parochial moaning on this site about proprietary technology. If open platforms are as much better as you seem to think, then Android or something else would be cleaning up. The reason they aren't cleaning up is that, like a lot of open source technology, they simply aren't as good as the proprietary alternatives.
You're also focussing on cost as the key issue. There are people around who just want to buy a computer that will sit in the corner and do its job for 10-15 years, just as you might expect from your TV or whatever. If that's absolutely impossible then he'll just have to accept it--but it's not an unreasonable thing to ask for, particularly is it seems to have worked out okay with his existing setup.
That doesn't solve the problem, it ignores his principal request. The guy looking to buy a computer has made it clear that he doesn't want to have to replace his computer every few years; nowhere does the description say that he's looking to minimise cost. Your response is typical of IT (and other) professionals who presume to know users want, rather than listening to what they actually want.
Billy Bragg has always concentrated less on music than he has on left-wing activism, and the haphazard selection of musicians he's recruited to this cause are not '140 of the UK's biggest music stars'. The list of sixty or so names on their website includes some extremely marginal musicians alongside a cluster of big names who have a track record of supporting anti-corporate causes. They are entitled to their view, for sure, but contrary to what they and The Independent might lead you to think, they are not representative of the British music industry.
It wouldn't stop any discussions if people simply made clear the extent to which their research is based on guesswork. Episodes like this tend to indicate that the researchers involved don't really have a great enough appreciation for their methods' limitations.
I don't think you can pin the blame purely on the press. People working in this field can make it clear when their findings are based partly on assumptions rather than proven science. Getting overexcited and announcing discoveries that turn out to be false can have quite a serious impact on the scientific community's reputation.
Whoever marked the parent 'redundant' should have there moderation rights removed. The comment addresses the question posed in the synopsis, and is entirely relevant, it just doesn't match the prevailing view of most Slashdotters. Another example of Slashdot moderators behaving as if they were voting for comments on Reddit.
That's probably be true for most Slashdot readers. But a lot of regular consumers are won over by slick visuals -- just look at the number of people willing to take a performance hit for the sake of displaying Aero Glass on Vista. Also, Apple's draw isn't only due to smart marketing and a good UI; people marvel at their products in the stores, and new Apple users are always proud to show off how impressive their new device looks (both the hardware and software.) Eye candy is important to a lot of people whether you like it or not.
I guess it is down to personal preference, which is why it's pity that many manufacturers have stopped even giving the option of a matte screen. Personally I find that glossy screens offer a poor viewing angle and unwanted reflections - but they seem to have won the battle for mass appeal.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe this is really on the cards:
a) Releasing spurious leaks to the press seems to be par for the course in business negotiations now.
b) Adobe are desperate to somehow put the shitters up Apple, and get them to allow Flash on their phones.
c) If this was legit it would be very unlikely to be leaked the way it has been.
Commenting to remove a bad mod.
>It amazed me that this was marked troll, but maybe the other guy did the same thing.
If only. Unfortunately every Apple thread attracts armies of partisan moderators from both sides, ready to promote or demote comments with no regard to whether they're interesting or insightful, just whether they seem to be pro or anti-Apple. It's encouraging to know that you follow the moderation guidelines, but there is a large group of Slashdot moderators that don't.
It isn't moronic at all. Slashdot doesn't control people's comments, but it does influence the discussion markedly with it's choice of stories and the way they're presented. Phantomfive is right, while a lot of the criticisms are well-founded, there is almost no objective discussion about Microsoft (and various other subjects) on this site, and the Borg graphic and 'M$' label are entirely consistent with that.
To enable you to Tweet in between games of Attack of the Mutant Camels.
Nice conspiracy theory but probably false. Red Bull cola is one of few colas that contains coca leaf extracts, so it seems plausible that microscopic traces of the alkaloid might end up in the final product. Also, the six German states that the article refers to apparently don't agree with you that it's not enough to break laws, which would hardly be an acceptable trade off for the sake of attracting a few teenagers excited by the idea of taking narcotics.
I know Apple-hating always wins an applause around here, but your description of how things stand is a substantial (and deliberate) distortion. Apple acknowledged that approving Baby Shaker was a mistake, and quickly removed it from the store; Pocket God is only racist according to the most paranoid leftist point of view; shoot 'em ups are subject to the same rules of decency as any other app, and none of those available in the store seriously qualify as adult material. Third-party mail clients are banned for the very clear reason that Apple don't want programs in the app store that reproduce the iPhone's basic functions--you may not agree with the rule, but it isn't ambiguous or inconsistent as you describe.
Apple have made some well-publicised errors in their approvals process, but any company starting a new service and processing that volume of material would have made mistakes. I suspect you simply object in principle to Apple supervising the content on the iPhone, which I know is a commonly held view; but it is an entirely reasonable policy for Apple to take, to avoid genuinely wanton or malicious programs being available on their device. For people who want an unregulated system, there are other phones and platforms available.
I realise this is an open discussion board, but it would be nice to read comments with a bit more value than 'fuck Apple'.
People liking non-mainstream products doesn't bother me at all; I'd be thrilled if free software like Linux or Gimp were viable alternatives to the expensive industry standards. Part of the reason these products fail to match up, though, is the type of attitude I described before -- open-source fans are too preoccupied with their disapproval of large corporations to understand what's actually wrong with the open-source offerings. I'm not trying to flame, but I think your comments typify this kind of attitude -- you dislike Apple and their marketing strategy so much that you can't appreciate that, for all their censorship and iron-fisted control, they offer some extremely good products.
No, I don't own an iPhone personally; the part that bothers me is the endless parochial moaning on this site about proprietary technology. If open platforms are as much better as you seem to think, then Android or something else would be cleaning up. The reason they aren't cleaning up is that, like a lot of open source technology, they simply aren't as good as the proprietary alternatives.
Fuck any platform where the vendor must approve content.
If Apple's app store rules bother you then don't buy an iPhone; why do you need to whine about it?
You're also focussing on cost as the key issue. There are people around who just want to buy a computer that will sit in the corner and do its job for 10-15 years, just as you might expect from your TV or whatever. If that's absolutely impossible then he'll just have to accept it--but it's not an unreasonable thing to ask for, particularly is it seems to have worked out okay with his existing setup.
There, problem solved.
That doesn't solve the problem, it ignores his principal request. The guy looking to buy a computer has made it clear that he doesn't want to have to replace his computer every few years; nowhere does the description say that he's looking to minimise cost. Your response is typical of IT (and other) professionals who presume to know users want, rather than listening to what they actually want.
Billy Bragg has always concentrated less on music than he has on left-wing activism, and the haphazard selection of musicians he's recruited to this cause are not '140 of the UK's biggest music stars'. The list of sixty or so names on their website includes some extremely marginal musicians alongside a cluster of big names who have a track record of supporting anti-corporate causes. They are entitled to their view, for sure, but contrary to what they and The Independent might lead you to think, they are not representative of the British music industry.
It wouldn't stop any discussions if people simply made clear the extent to which their research is based on guesswork. Episodes like this tend to indicate that the researchers involved don't really have a great enough appreciation for their methods' limitations.
I don't think you can pin the blame purely on the press. People working in this field can make it clear when their findings are based partly on assumptions rather than proven science. Getting overexcited and announcing discoveries that turn out to be false can have quite a serious impact on the scientific community's reputation.
Whoever marked the parent 'redundant' should have there moderation rights removed. The comment addresses the question posed in the synopsis, and is entirely relevant, it just doesn't match the prevailing view of most Slashdotters. Another example of Slashdot moderators behaving as if they were voting for comments on Reddit.
That's probably be true for most Slashdot readers. But a lot of regular consumers are won over by slick visuals -- just look at the number of people willing to take a performance hit for the sake of displaying Aero Glass on Vista. Also, Apple's draw isn't only due to smart marketing and a good UI; people marvel at their products in the stores, and new Apple users are always proud to show off how impressive their new device looks (both the hardware and software.) Eye candy is important to a lot of people whether you like it or not.
I guess it is down to personal preference, which is why it's pity that many manufacturers have stopped even giving the option of a matte screen. Personally I find that glossy screens offer a poor viewing angle and unwanted reflections - but they seem to have won the battle for mass appeal.