Likewise I shouldn't have to give up my privacy because I'm in someone's photo. Facial recognition in itself is fine but as more people's information gets put online it'll be easier to take more of people's information without them even knowing it and it could be used to control people's access to the intenet by killing off anonymous usage. Those things should concern people
I'm not sure I can call an exceptionally wealthy company going after Nokia who's knocking on death's door a defensive move especially when they could have always filed the antitrust suit against MS which would have made more sense given it's MS that is benefiting much more by going after Android hardware companies. But that would mean going after someone who is equally as strong and it's much easier to try and bankrupt Nokia and kill of a WP manufacturer. Just as MS should go after Google but they pick on the weaker guys.
And quite frankly allowing HTC continue the whole problem of patent lawsuits rather than actively trying to fix it doesn't help anyone but themselves (and HTC) and they could have kept those patents and went after Apple but they didn't. They're trying to have their cake and eat it too imo to keep their image clean, imo so yes I'll admit there isn't *that* much at the moment but I think that's going to change.
He declined today to grant Samsung’s bid for an injunction blocking Apple from making public statements that the Galaxy infringed its design rights.
So they can still say the Galaxy infringed on their design. They only have to put it on their website for the UK only and they'll probably turn it around and say something along the lines of court confirming their product is cooler which is hardly detrimental to their image.
Google wants to keep their image clean amongst open source. But that doesn't mean they aren't using other people to sue over patents or giving them patents to do their dirty work.
I'd fully expect to see them start doing more now that they have Motorola. I suspect they didn't have any patents worth having in the mobile area but now they do and they're doing to use them.
You mean like any console these days or any distribution network like Steam or an App stores? Nintendo did have a hard ass approach and even when you could publish on the NES you were only allowed to do something like 5 games a year which lead to Konami creating Ultra to give themselves 10 games a year.
That said, their approach is probably what saved console gaming. It's easy to look back on that now and say that sucks but the NES certainly wasn't lacking 3rd party games and given that consoles pretty much dead before the NES the whole free-for-all wasn't working terribly well
I'd still say it's different as IE was built into the OS. Safari is still separate but Apple certainly tries to keep it there for, as far as I can tell, to stop newbs from giving themselves problems. In fact I'd be willing to bet if something weird happened like Apple bought Firefox they could replace Safari quickly. Certainly quicker than doing that with IE.
Though as much as Microsoft claimed it was impossible to do they did indeed give you the option to uninstall IE in Win 7 through add/remove programs which removes most of it leaving at least the rendering engine which many programs rely on.
Look, I'm not saying Newsweek is what it used to be by any means but it's brand certainly holds more value across more demographics than Digg. So I'm pretty certain Newsweek will exist in some form longer than Digg which, at best, will probably end up like Alta Vista and effectively just be another url for another site.
Apple do make it harder to just drag and drop it in the bin perhaps because it can be relied on enough to ensure someone doesn't break the experience by accidentally removing it but it's definitely removable and downloadable as a separate item.
Admittedly I did make a mistake. I should have said Microsoft not Windows. But the point still stands that Microsoft purposely ignore your choices to push their choice on you.
It's true we can't expect things to stay one way forever but there is an obvious trend of the wealth divide growing, the population just isn't going to start decreasing any time soon and jobs seem to going away at a faster rate than new alternatives are showing up. I just think if we continue as we are without changing something then it will blow up in our face. Arguably it already has and that's why the economy is shit.
Who is going to volunteer to stop breeding? We already have mega farms with what's effectively cows on conveyor belts for milking and at some point we can probably even replace jobs like programmer and probably even investment bankers. Arguably we won't need anyone to work eventually so what then?
The whole problem though with doing things on large scales is you lose a lot. You do lose quality for convenience in foods and anything that's not mainstream usually falls to the way-side. Of course if you're happy with acceptable food and pop music then it sounds like a utopia but for many people it's bland and soulless which does sound about right for a nation and companies lead mainly by people who think an MBA is a respectable degree.
The reality is that humans will probably take things too far, things will fuck up and then we'll swing back the other way until we go too far in the other direction.
That's not really true. The best quality veg still comes from the local markets and the best meat still comes from the butcher. Larger stores have an advantage on non-local fruits / veg because it does generally makes no sense for one small shop to be shipping fruit from Africa or south America.
Large super markets usually only have a convenience advantage. Everything else is either the same (ie Doritos will taste the same from any shop) or the specialists will have better food mainly because that is their speciality. As someone who also does online shopping, I've attempted to buy fruit and veg before and the largest problem with that is that low paid worker doesn't give a shit if you get the nicest stuff off the shelf and in fact probably rather give you the shit so they don't have to haul it out back and dispose of it so while online shopping is even more convenient than a super market it also lacks a little more in the quality department.
Well yeah but if the desktop PC is effectively a server then there is an assumption it's not by the TV or I have multiple TVs. So for some people it may make sense (ie multiple TVs for multiple kids or something).
But the desktop will of course act as a server so I can access material on my laptop elsewhere but I want play PC games more than xbox games so it makes more sense just to hook up the PC to the TV. Rather than hooking up a box that requires an XBL subscription on top of a netflix subscription and any other subscriptions I need and a, imo, broken game purchasing system that requires me to buy points rather than just using money which ensures I pretty much always get left with a balance. That and it has no web browser. Admittedly it is only just now getting IE at some point this year but ignoring the fact it's IE, the system has been around for 7 years and is only just getting a web browser. For the time being though that means it requires subscription to XBL just to use freebies like twitter and facebook and worse yet, that's the best you're going to get out of the net until IE does finally come.
My DVDs don't require a subscription and many were bought before Netflix existed so why would I pay to access a digital version when I can make a free digital version and I can put into any format and doesn't require Silverlight and isn't susceptible to network failures.? I dunno, the idea of paying a subscription fee for something I already have seem pretty retarded.
Anyone with half a brain knew the 360 was another attempt at a set-top box to dominate the living room but you can't blame people for being upset when MS specfically aimed the system at "core" gamers and have now turned it into something to appeal to their mothers because it turns out those gamers aren't profitable enough in their eyes.
br /
Also it's pretty fucking poor as a media machine. A desktop serves that job better. For starters the xbox is never going to have to space to hold all my ripped music and DVDs. I own easily at least 500 DVDs and some blu-rays. I need some serious space for that. Not some toy whose sole purpose is to drain my wallet.
Epeat was in the wrong. Making it so Apple has to remove the battery guaranteed it was recycled. Unlike other PCs where people often just chuck it in the normal bin like any other battery.
Can you back that up with proof? They have a recycling program and as long as you're not taking something ancient back you can get a gift certificate for bring it back. I can't think of any other company that gives incentives to bring your shit back to recycle it.
Their issues is that a person can't remove their own battery. That is not an environmental hazard and in fact Apple being the only one that can reomve it guarantees it gets recycled. Where as batteries that consumers can remove and replace can and do end up in land fills.
Some low budget Android site gets hacked and we feel the need to talk about it? It's a fucking PHP based site. I'm surprised not being hacked in between each restart to recover from memory leaks.
By minimising choice you end up with fewer low paid jobs. Even if it turns out to be the same amount of jobs they'll be lowered paid. It's not a good thing. Given the US' history of bending over for corporations too leaving everything to dry up and only having, for example, Wal-Mart and Amazon, as your only choice will not be a good thing. Anyone who can't see that in the long term that killing off choice is a bad thing is nuts. It's not just about doing things the old way. I like online shopping but why not have the same level of competition but online rather than deciding it's better to just go with the two companies that do questionable things and treat their employees like low paid shit.
Slashdot Mirror
Likewise I shouldn't have to give up my privacy because I'm in someone's photo. Facial recognition in itself is fine but as more people's information gets put online it'll be easier to take more of people's information without them even knowing it and it could be used to control people's access to the intenet by killing off anonymous usage. Those things should concern people
You've clearly never watched Face Off.
I'm not saying they should but their complain is apparently with Nokia and MS but they're taking the cheap route.
I'm not sure I can call an exceptionally wealthy company going after Nokia who's knocking on death's door a defensive move especially when they could have always filed the antitrust suit against MS which would have made more sense given it's MS that is benefiting much more by going after Android hardware companies. But that would mean going after someone who is equally as strong and it's much easier to try and bankrupt Nokia and kill of a WP manufacturer. Just as MS should go after Google but they pick on the weaker guys.
And quite frankly allowing HTC continue the whole problem of patent lawsuits rather than actively trying to fix it doesn't help anyone but themselves (and HTC) and they could have kept those patents and went after Apple but they didn't. They're trying to have their cake and eat it too imo to keep their image clean, imo so yes I'll admit there isn't *that* much at the moment but I think that's going to change.
He declined today to grant Samsung’s bid for an injunction blocking Apple from making public statements that the Galaxy infringed its design rights.
So they can still say the Galaxy infringed on their design. They only have to put it on their website for the UK only and they'll probably turn it around and say something along the lines of court confirming their product is cooler which is hardly detrimental to their image.
So I'm failing to see how they've been shamed.
Google wants to keep their image clean amongst open source. But that doesn't mean they aren't using other people to sue over patents or giving them patents to do their dirty work.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/09/googles-already-using-their-motorola-patents-sue-apple/42196/
They're also helping HTC go up against Nokia and filing an antitrust complaint against Nokia in the EU.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304821304577438740232322350.html
I'd fully expect to see them start doing more now that they have Motorola. I suspect they didn't have any patents worth having in the mobile area but now they do and they're doing to use them.
You mean like any console these days or any distribution network like Steam or an App stores? Nintendo did have a hard ass approach and even when you could publish on the NES you were only allowed to do something like 5 games a year which lead to Konami creating Ultra to give themselves 10 games a year.
That said, their approach is probably what saved console gaming. It's easy to look back on that now and say that sucks but the NES certainly wasn't lacking 3rd party games and given that consoles pretty much dead before the NES the whole free-for-all wasn't working terribly well
I'd still say it's different as IE was built into the OS. Safari is still separate but Apple certainly tries to keep it there for, as far as I can tell, to stop newbs from giving themselves problems. In fact I'd be willing to bet if something weird happened like Apple bought Firefox they could replace Safari quickly. Certainly quicker than doing that with IE.
Though as much as Microsoft claimed it was impossible to do they did indeed give you the option to uninstall IE in Win 7 through add/remove programs which removes most of it leaving at least the rendering engine which many programs rely on.
You realise if their prices go up by $10 then AUS prices will go up by at least that.
You're full of shit or extremely luckly. The 360 has the biggest asshole gamers but the PS3 certainly isn't free of douche bags.
Look, I'm not saying Newsweek is what it used to be by any means but it's brand certainly holds more value across more demographics than Digg. So I'm pretty certain Newsweek will exist in some form longer than Digg which, at best, will probably end up like Alta Vista and effectively just be another url for another site.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1255588
Apple do make it harder to just drag and drop it in the bin perhaps because it can be relied on enough to ensure someone doesn't break the experience by accidentally removing it but it's definitely removable and downloadable as a separate item.
Admittedly I did make a mistake. I should have said Microsoft not Windows. But the point still stands that Microsoft purposely ignore your choices to push their choice on you.
The widening wealth gap and the shit economy tells me that's probably not the case.
It's true we can't expect things to stay one way forever but there is an obvious trend of the wealth divide growing, the population just isn't going to start decreasing any time soon and jobs seem to going away at a faster rate than new alternatives are showing up. I just think if we continue as we are without changing something then it will blow up in our face. Arguably it already has and that's why the economy is shit.
Who is going to volunteer to stop breeding? We already have mega farms with what's effectively cows on conveyor belts for milking and at some point we can probably even replace jobs like programmer and probably even investment bankers. Arguably we won't need anyone to work eventually so what then?
The whole problem though with doing things on large scales is you lose a lot. You do lose quality for convenience in foods and anything that's not mainstream usually falls to the way-side. Of course if you're happy with acceptable food and pop music then it sounds like a utopia but for many people it's bland and soulless which does sound about right for a nation and companies lead mainly by people who think an MBA is a respectable degree.
The reality is that humans will probably take things too far, things will fuck up and then we'll swing back the other way until we go too far in the other direction.
That's not really true. The best quality veg still comes from the local markets and the best meat still comes from the butcher. Larger stores have an advantage on non-local fruits / veg because it does generally makes no sense for one small shop to be shipping fruit from Africa or south America.
Large super markets usually only have a convenience advantage. Everything else is either the same (ie Doritos will taste the same from any shop) or the specialists will have better food mainly because that is their speciality. As someone who also does online shopping, I've attempted to buy fruit and veg before and the largest problem with that is that low paid worker doesn't give a shit if you get the nicest stuff off the shelf and in fact probably rather give you the shit so they don't have to haul it out back and dispose of it so while online shopping is even more convenient than a super market it also lacks a little more in the quality department.
Well yeah but if the desktop PC is effectively a server then there is an assumption it's not by the TV or I have multiple TVs. So for some people it may make sense (ie multiple TVs for multiple kids or something).
But the desktop will of course act as a server so I can access material on my laptop elsewhere but I want play PC games more than xbox games so it makes more sense just to hook up the PC to the TV. Rather than hooking up a box that requires an XBL subscription on top of a netflix subscription and any other subscriptions I need and a, imo, broken game purchasing system that requires me to buy points rather than just using money which ensures I pretty much always get left with a balance. That and it has no web browser. Admittedly it is only just now getting IE at some point this year but ignoring the fact it's IE, the system has been around for 7 years and is only just getting a web browser. For the time being though that means it requires subscription to XBL just to use freebies like twitter and facebook and worse yet, that's the best you're going to get out of the net until IE does finally come.
My DVDs don't require a subscription and many were bought before Netflix existed so why would I pay to access a digital version when I can make a free digital version and I can put into any format and doesn't require Silverlight and isn't susceptible to network failures.? I dunno, the idea of paying a subscription fee for something I already have seem pretty retarded.
Anyone with half a brain knew the 360 was another attempt at a set-top box to dominate the living room but you can't blame people for being upset when MS specfically aimed the system at "core" gamers and have now turned it into something to appeal to their mothers because it turns out those gamers aren't profitable enough in their eyes.
br / Also it's pretty fucking poor as a media machine. A desktop serves that job better. For starters the xbox is never going to have to space to hold all my ripped music and DVDs. I own easily at least 500 DVDs and some blu-rays. I need some serious space for that. Not some toy whose sole purpose is to drain my wallet.
Epeat was in the wrong. Making it so Apple has to remove the battery guaranteed it was recycled. Unlike other PCs where people often just chuck it in the normal bin like any other battery.
Can you back that up with proof? They have a recycling program and as long as you're not taking something ancient back you can get a gift certificate for bring it back. I can't think of any other company that gives incentives to bring your shit back to recycle it.
Their issues is that a person can't remove their own battery. That is not an environmental hazard and in fact Apple being the only one that can reomve it guarantees it gets recycled. Where as batteries that consumers can remove and replace can and do end up in land fills.
If you disagree feel free to provide proof.
Some low budget Android site gets hacked and we feel the need to talk about it? It's a fucking PHP based site. I'm surprised not being hacked in between each restart to recover from memory leaks.
Newsweek will also be around longer than Digg.
How so when there are fewer jobs and they're low paid? You'll need cheaper goods when you wage drops.
By minimising choice you end up with fewer low paid jobs. Even if it turns out to be the same amount of jobs they'll be lowered paid. It's not a good thing. Given the US' history of bending over for corporations too leaving everything to dry up and only having, for example, Wal-Mart and Amazon, as your only choice will not be a good thing. Anyone who can't see that in the long term that killing off choice is a bad thing is nuts. It's not just about doing things the old way. I like online shopping but why not have the same level of competition but online rather than deciding it's better to just go with the two companies that do questionable things and treat their employees like low paid shit.