I can still make a phone call over google voice on my iphone or any phone for that matter just as easy. The app would without a doubt be a nice thing to have but I'll manage, hell maybe I'll write it myself, can't be that hard.
True, but you're a special case. Making google voice super easy and accessible from the iPhone probably makes AT&T a bit more nervous. Publish that source if you can:-) I'd like that to get in on that...er that may violate all that weird Apple SDK ToS stuff, I don't remember.
My real question is when will Apple get their time in court for their anti-competive/anti-fair use actions, seems like so long ago Microsoft got reamed for giving users more options for free while Apple takes them away. Imagine if Microsoft was going around uninstalling applications on your computer at their whim!
Yes however having an app right on the iPhone makes it that much more easy and "smooth". So easy that it could cross the threshold of user adoption to the point of AT&T invoking Apple ToS to deny the app.
Google Voice for phone calls uses at&t minutes, which don't cost Apple.
Yes but using Google voice to make international calls would be way cheaper than making a phone call on your cell phone with AT&T. At the moment, the iPhone isn't just the device, it's also the infrastructure that supports the iPhone (which you pay gobs for). Google voice offers services that compete with AT&T and the iPhone infrastructure in ways big enough to hurt the bottom line of AT&T, which as you can see from other comments at the least, made this app go pouf disappear.
I'm just really confused who this Morales person is, and why you're talking about others forcing him/her on us. That's kind of gross, and also ethically questionable. I guess in your world I don't believe in freedom. False dilemma, much? What? HOLLA!
using Apple's USB vendor ID in violation of the USB standard
Please tell me you're ranting to stand up for the holy of holies: the USB standard. The problem is this, the consumer wants a phone that's either not an iPhone or not on AT&T or something else YET still wants it to sync with iTunes. Palm is meeting demand by providing them a phone that takes the necessary steps. They could EASILY write their own GUI interface, but that's not what the consumer wants. iTunes is the top music market almost globally (if not already, I don't want to bother verifying), why would Palm bother competing in a market that they're not even a member of? What's the point? They don't plan on becoming a competitor in the music store business (which is really what iTunes is) or the media player arena. Apple is integrating their product line the exact same way Microsoft did back in the 90's with the Microsoft Network dialup service, and Palm is the guy trying to break into their action. Apple is leveraging their dominance in one market to gain sway in another, it's a monopolistic practice and its legally (and ethically [to some]) questionable. If you think it's so amateur don't buy it, it's as simple as that. Apple doesn't need people defending them and iTunes so violently, they have an army of lawyers to that end and they're not afraid to use them.
I think "it just works" is more important to the end consumer than griping about standards violations with usb. I certainly don't ever check, I just want it to work. If it works by breaking some ivory tower industry standard, by all means, do it.
I got plenty of laughs out of the new ghostbusters games. It was all what the other (NPC) characters were saying. Dialog will always be a key to humor.
Meh. Just because it uses/runs on the Linux kernel doesn't make it
a) An automatic hardcore Microsoft competitor for the desktop. See Linux
b) Good.
I for one am a bit perplexed by adding yet another layer of indirection on top of the hardware to make it "better" ala "web technologies" for desktop computing. Not only are we adding more crap for computers to run. We're putting them on crappier computers and automatically calling them better. Sure netbooks have their uses (I think, i dunno, I don't use them, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt), but there are still plenty of users that require a bit more power and use from a system that I have yet to see the web provide in an acceptable form. Sure you can do video editing on the web, and photo editing, but.....ugh. Though I wouldn't be suprised if this all caught on like wildfire and everybody switches to a netbook..change isn't always for the better.
The only people who should fear this O.S is MS and existing Linux distros - although the competation and the opensourcing of the code will benifit the entire community.
I hardly think the existing user base of distros like Debian, Gentoo, Slackware, is going to make a rampant switch to Google's nix OS.
I agree with you. Why she wasn't charged with harassment (though I'm not quite sure what Missouri's interpretation is and if it would apply here) or some weird exploitation of a minor or something else like that is amazing. Why they decided to charge her with "computer hacking" is just another example of how our legal elites of today are completely out of touch with modern day 1990's technology. As much as I'd like to see her put away for awhile, this could set a really bad legal precedent if the judge were to give it a green light.
Is like trying to hold water in a sifter. It's only a matter of time before some doofus puts an.xls file with everybody's info into a web share and then says "hackers compromised the [publicly available] private student data". Not like I haven't had any experience with this....or anything.
Simply put: professors do not own their students' coursework.
Professors may not own their students' work, but you may want to check your facts. Many Universities lay claim to the work done by their students in an academic setting. IANAL, but typically the qualifiers for a school to own your work begin to appear when the work you do is done using significant university resources (namely doing work under the guidance of a prof, I know you'll say that many students don't get help from their profs other than the class...but sometimes to some schools this doesn't even matter). It's not that I necessarily agree with this practice, I don't. I've been "victimized" by my own university after it laid claim to a group project that my group had been working on for a school contest. Through a web of legalities the school considered us "students" to be "employees" (albeit employees who paid ~15-20k a year to 'work' at the school) and all employees were required to render IP they had developed in their respective programs to the university. Our app was fundamentally flawed and incomplete, so we opted not to fight the team of lawyers for something that was broken. The whole experience was rather disheartening. All these rules we'd "agreed" to were essentially a part of the shrinkwrap rules you agreed to/were bound to by being a part of the university. The school acted as though this was the modus operandi for a lot of schools, and I couldn't really be sure one way or the other. I recognize that my experience may have been unique, but I've seen similar stories like this, even on slashdot.
Back to what you were saying, professors probably aren't going to own a student's coursework. Universities, might, however, like in my case if they've set up a rats nest of rules to capture student IP.
How fond Americans are of reductionist dualities that are unhelpful, misleading and frequently downright dangerous: American pilot with The Right Stuff in an American plane would have saved everyone; dangerous European plane and computer killed hundreds. Oversimplified sniping, or childish fantasy?
Don't Europeans do that kind of thing with American corporate structure (as it relates to society and all that shiz) all the time? European corp: socially responsible. American corp: stomping the little guy. I mean just sayin'.
These frequently "dangerous" "reductionist dualities" aren't limited to the American side of the Atlantic. And I know, I know, you didn't say Europeans DO NOT engage in such tom foolery, but I find your lack of objectivity...well..."downright dangerous", "unhelpful", and "misleading".
It seems people here can't understand the difference between reality and sophism.
Slashdot != Reality
People here jump at the opportunity to tell someone how simplified their argument is, instead of actually considering the content of the argument itself. I guess that's common among all us nerds though.
It's just more fun being contradictory. Where's the sport in simply agreeing with what you're saying?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes however, there are the hordes of users who had iTunes from the get go and are now stuck with (b/m)illions of DRMed tracks.
I can still make a phone call over google voice on my iphone or any phone for that matter just as easy. The app would without a doubt be a nice thing to have but I'll manage, hell maybe I'll write it myself, can't be that hard.
True, but you're a special case. Making google voice super easy and accessible from the iPhone probably makes AT&T a bit more nervous. Publish that source if you can :-) I'd like that to get in on that...er that may violate all that weird Apple SDK ToS stuff, I don't remember.
My real question is when will Apple get their time in court for their anti-competive/anti-fair use actions, seems like so long ago Microsoft got reamed for giving users more options for free while Apple takes them away. Imagine if Microsoft was going around uninstalling applications on your computer at their whim!
Couldn't agree with you more.
Yes however having an app right on the iPhone makes it that much more easy and "smooth". So easy that it could cross the threshold of user adoption to the point of AT&T invoking Apple ToS to deny the app.
Because Google Voice is way more cool. It's a scientific fact.
Google Voice for phone calls uses at&t minutes, which don't cost Apple.
Yes but using Google voice to make international calls would be way cheaper than making a phone call on your cell phone with AT&T. At the moment, the iPhone isn't just the device, it's also the infrastructure that supports the iPhone (which you pay gobs for). Google voice offers services that compete with AT&T and the iPhone infrastructure in ways big enough to hurt the bottom line of AT&T, which as you can see from other comments at the least, made this app go pouf disappear.
That's not what he was talking about, though. He was suggesting alternative reasons why Bing had a better clickthrough rate.
I'm just really confused who this Morales person is, and why you're talking about others forcing him/her on us. That's kind of gross, and also ethically questionable. I guess in your world I don't believe in freedom. False dilemma, much? What? HOLLA!
using Apple's USB vendor ID in violation of the USB standard
Please tell me you're ranting to stand up for the holy of holies: the USB standard. The problem is this, the consumer wants a phone that's either not an iPhone or not on AT&T or something else YET still wants it to sync with iTunes. Palm is meeting demand by providing them a phone that takes the necessary steps. They could EASILY write their own GUI interface, but that's not what the consumer wants. iTunes is the top music market almost globally (if not already, I don't want to bother verifying), why would Palm bother competing in a market that they're not even a member of? What's the point? They don't plan on becoming a competitor in the music store business (which is really what iTunes is) or the media player arena. Apple is integrating their product line the exact same way Microsoft did back in the 90's with the Microsoft Network dialup service, and Palm is the guy trying to break into their action. Apple is leveraging their dominance in one market to gain sway in another, it's a monopolistic practice and its legally (and ethically [to some]) questionable. If you think it's so amateur don't buy it, it's as simple as that. Apple doesn't need people defending them and iTunes so violently, they have an army of lawyers to that end and they're not afraid to use them.
USB standards violating
I think "it just works" is more important to the end consumer than griping about standards violations with usb. I certainly don't ever check, I just want it to work. If it works by breaking some ivory tower industry standard, by all means, do it.
I got plenty of laughs out of the new ghostbusters games. It was all what the other (NPC) characters were saying. Dialog will always be a key to humor.
Well if this is real, then you have a chance for it. I wouldn't hold my breath.
a) An automatic hardcore Microsoft competitor for the desktop. See Linux
b) Good. I for one am a bit perplexed by adding yet another layer of indirection on top of the hardware to make it "better" ala "web technologies" for desktop computing. Not only are we adding more crap for computers to run. We're putting them on crappier computers and automatically calling them better. Sure netbooks have their uses (I think, i dunno, I don't use them, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt), but there are still plenty of users that require a bit more power and use from a system that I have yet to see the web provide in an acceptable form. Sure you can do video editing on the web, and photo editing, but.....ugh.
Though I wouldn't be suprised if this all caught on like wildfire and everybody switches to a netbook..change isn't always for the better.
The only people who should fear this O.S is MS and existing Linux distros - although the competation and the opensourcing of the code will benifit the entire community.
I hardly think the existing user base of distros like Debian, Gentoo, Slackware, is going to make a rampant switch to Google's nix OS.
Developers' time = $$$
Docking permission requested. Docking request accepted.
I thought it was funny, you insensitive clod!
Pfff. Who is John Galt?
Does anybody know? That'd be a great comparison.
...she was forced to seek validation from anonymous strangers on the internet.
Obviously you've never been a 13 year old girl.
I agree with you. Why she wasn't charged with harassment (though I'm not quite sure what Missouri's interpretation is and if it would apply here) or some weird exploitation of a minor or something else like that is amazing. Why they decided to charge her with "computer hacking" is just another example of how our legal elites of today are completely out of touch with modern day 1990's technology. As much as I'd like to see her put away for awhile, this could set a really bad legal precedent if the judge were to give it a green light.
Is like trying to hold water in a sifter. It's only a matter of time before some doofus puts an .xls file with everybody's info into a web share and then says "hackers compromised the [publicly available] private student data". Not like I haven't had any experience with this....or anything.
Simply put: professors do not own their students' coursework.
Professors may not own their students' work, but you may want to check your facts. Many Universities lay claim to the work done by their students in an academic setting. IANAL, but typically the qualifiers for a school to own your work begin to appear when the work you do is done using significant university resources (namely doing work under the guidance of a prof, I know you'll say that many students don't get help from their profs other than the class...but sometimes to some schools this doesn't even matter). It's not that I necessarily agree with this practice, I don't. I've been "victimized" by my own university after it laid claim to a group project that my group had been working on for a school contest. Through a web of legalities the school considered us "students" to be "employees" (albeit employees who paid ~15-20k a year to 'work' at the school) and all employees were required to render IP they had developed in their respective programs to the university. Our app was fundamentally flawed and incomplete, so we opted not to fight the team of lawyers for something that was broken. The whole experience was rather disheartening. All these rules we'd "agreed" to were essentially a part of the shrinkwrap rules you agreed to/were bound to by being a part of the university. The school acted as though this was the modus operandi for a lot of schools, and I couldn't really be sure one way or the other. I recognize that my experience may have been unique, but I've seen similar stories like this, even on slashdot.
Back to what you were saying, professors probably aren't going to own a student's coursework. Universities, might, however, like in my case if they've set up a rats nest of rules to capture student IP.
That's a lot of gaffers and grips.
How fond Americans are of reductionist dualities that are unhelpful, misleading and frequently downright dangerous: American pilot with The Right Stuff in an American plane would have saved everyone; dangerous European plane and computer killed hundreds. Oversimplified sniping, or childish fantasy?
Don't Europeans do that kind of thing with American corporate structure (as it relates to society and all that shiz) all the time? European corp: socially responsible. American corp: stomping the little guy. I mean just sayin'.
These frequently "dangerous" "reductionist dualities" aren't limited to the American side of the Atlantic. And I know, I know, you didn't say Europeans DO NOT engage in such tom foolery, but I find your lack of objectivity...well..."downright dangerous", "unhelpful", and "misleading".
The summary stinks, btw.
PURE AMERICAN FREEDOM trademark Uncle Sam Enterprises Ltd. All other rights reserved.
It seems people here can't understand the difference between reality and sophism.
Slashdot != Reality
People here jump at the opportunity to tell someone how simplified their argument is, instead of actually considering the content of the argument itself. I guess that's common among all us nerds though.
It's just more fun being contradictory. Where's the sport in simply agreeing with what you're saying?