No, I guess reading the EULA they expressly give no warranty... but if the EULA gives them this right, it must also give them the right to brick the phone. It's my understanding that those "no warranty" sections are bogus, especially when it comes to companies deliberately disabling features that were bought as a part of the original contract. I mean, the contract is a license to use the software, and the stated features are an important part of that contract, whether or not Apple wants to admit it.
This is why you always do a clean install, and organize your system such that this is not a difficult thing to do.
Of course, assembling a list of programs to install in addition to dealing with your data is a lot more difficult than the apt-get command I have to streamline the process, but a big advantage of reinstalling is all the random cruft programs that disappear.
Did you RTFA? Apple disables tethering for companies that aren't Apple partners. It has nothing to do with whether or not the carrier allows tethering. Apple is still living in a world where they can shove an authorized provider down their customer's throats, as if they weren't doing business in Europe, where the phone and the service are supposed to be separate.
Not just fraud but breach of contract. The users accepted the iPhone EULA with the understanding that tethering would work. I smell a class-action suit.
Lack of widespread browser support is an issue because it makes it a more difficult business decision, because it means that if people are dealing with the website at work, they need a sysadmin that doesn't have a problem installing software (and they need to ask.) WinSCP is a good, stable solution, but just installing it is a barrier to entry. IE or even just FF support would be nice. They already have the most of the overhead in the form of SSL (but perhaps Firefox has enough bloat...)
Also, just because it's dedicated doesn't necessarily mean that the user has a high amount of control over what is there, and if the site was set up 5-10 years ago, it's entirely understandable that it's still running ftp. I think the assumption that there are admins in charge of these servers is false. Obviously, someone is in charge of the admin password, but that is not necessarily their actual job.
I know it's a little bizarre to think that there are people paying for dedicated servers without a person dedicated to maintaining the software, but I assure you they exist.
Actually, I would say the people to blame are those hosting providers who keep using ftp with weak usernames and weak passwords as the preferred way to access your website.
There was a time when the client software was insufficient to the task, that time is long gone. WinSCP is mature and easy to use. No, browsers don't offer sftp:// support natively, but the browser is not very secure anyway. Hosting providers need to get their heads out of the sand and upgrade to secure authentication.
Most of those people haven't undergone training that costs millions of dollars. People with the kind of training we put astronauts through are very difficult to replace.
'Sports' like NASCAR or the running of the bulls, not so much. I'm not arguing that the positions take skill, but if we lose skilled people, others step in from the lower ranks of people who are doing exactly the same thing to take their place. We don't have an Astronaut reserve force waiting around. I mean, we do, but they have zero experience, and have gone through the same incredibly expensive training the on-call ones did.
I'm sure you're trolling, but go back and watch The Matrix sometime. It's an excellent piece of surrealist fiction. Cheap tricks don't get that kind of play if they aren't used elegantly. Bullet time showcased the breakdown of the fabric of reality, that everything is, and yet, isn't. All the uses since have just been eye-candy.
I was just ribbing on the AC for suggesting that there was somehow an obvious solution for Windows filesharing being trash. Expecting the built-in to work with minimal configuration is natural when you're shelling out $100+ dollars.
Or at least, I would expect it to work better than XP, which from this anecdote I would say it doesn't (to speak nothing of trying to share between Vista and XP.)
Everyone's talking as if Google stands to make immense profits from this, and that these are profits that would otherwise go to the authors of these books. But I don't see how that's really the case. Is Google really going to reignite the sleeping market for out-of-print books? Aren't they usually out-of-print for a reason?
It seems like the fact is that Google is going to eat its investment on this, and then some. (Why do you think Microsoft bowed out?)
And it's not like this is some sort of new thing for Google. They make money off search. Most of the other stuff is just for fun, and loses them money.
I know right? I mean, what kind of moron uses Window's built-in filesharing. Anyone with any sense knows that the only way to transfer files between two Windows PCs is to install Openssh and use that. It astounds me that so many people are too stupid to realize these sorts of things.
If it's implemented as a Facebook extension, I imagine the server can easily be run on a server of your choice, so instead of $EVIL_CORPORATION you can run it on your own server, or at the very least the hosting provider you are paying to take care of your data.
And most of this is concept stuff anyway. Implementation for pictures would be really nice, though the program currently pulls random text off the internet to obfuscate the fact that it's not showing you the real text. That sort of scheme would be more difficult for images, assuming they have some common-sense profanity filters in place, image filters are naturally harder...
Pan's Labyrinth is a marvelous fable. The eye-candy is secondary. All I've seen is snippets of Hellboy, which is standard action-movie fare.
But on Pan's Labyrinth alone I'm willing to give the credit. No one can create something with that much depth in meaning, character, and visuals on a fluke.
Maybe his stuff isn't that great in translation? Especially when he's working in translation, like Hellboy.
Oh no! My bureaucratic id number is in the hands of a bureaucrat!
Honestly, it's a bureaucrat's instrument and in no way related to you. Recordings of everything you do in public, now that says a good deal about you, who you are, what you do, where you go.
You'd be surprised how little a purchasing record actually tells you about a person.
But then, I suppose that does make false positives more likely on the credit card side than the CCTV side.
Any programmer that spends less than 1 second per character on their code should be shot.
3-5 seconds is to be highly encouraged.
On the other hand, there's some sort of a corollary about characters of documentation per line of code, which should probably be high enough to warrant touch typing.
Because if you use most of your fingers, and don't have to look at the keyboard, I'd say you're a touch typist, even if you don't follow the standard methodology.
That said, I think that the established methodology is sound, and you would be a faster typist if you had started with touch typing and put the time you put into your own method improving on your touch typing.
I suspect two reasons, though a cursory Google search doens't turn up much justification:
1) The frequency of the characters you type with the left hand is greater than that of the right, so it is a wear-balancing thing between the hands. I just ran the numbers with the Wikipedia page, and it comes out to the left side's frequency being 56.101%, while the right is 42.311%. (I did not count 'b', since b is dead in the middle, though I personally use my left hand, so that's even more reason to use the right thumb.)
2) The right hand has a wider range of motion, with the pinky ready to hit enter or backspace, while the left pinky is practically on the edge of the keyboard. I suspect that being more stretched makes the right thumb more efficient at hitting the space bar.
I agree with you in general, but with a caveat. Google apps present a far better way to organize information than Exchange does. Yes, it's mature and people understand it. However, it's very difficult to properly version documents with Exchange. With Google Apps, it's effortless. Collaboration is built in. I'm working on a project right now that's split into 5 spreadsheets, and there are two separate copies, not counting the numerous copies that have been sent via e-mail as we've been modifying back and forth and making corrections.
All the spreadsheet does is track some database field names, their purposes, and equivalents in the new database. It doesn't need anything other than the basic features. What it does need is version control. Exchange not only avoids version control, it actively supports this sort of e-mail tag where everyone has several copies floating around.
Until Exchange provides proper Wiki functionality, I don't see it as a compelling alternative for someone who hasn't yet learned its ways. Unfortunately, there's a lot of training that goes out the window, and probably makes the current workforce incapable of realizing the benefits of ditching the e-mail and modify model without having the full force of the Office interface in place.
A lot of smaller bands burn their own CDs to sell at concerts. So they're paying the record companies for the privilege of copying their own music, which the record companies had no part in creating.
And where is their cut if someone copies a CD bought at one of these smaller concerts? Such bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I guess reading the EULA they expressly give no warranty... but if the EULA gives them this right, it must also give them the right to brick the phone. It's my understanding that those "no warranty" sections are bogus, especially when it comes to companies deliberately disabling features that were bought as a part of the original contract. I mean, the contract is a license to use the software, and the stated features are an important part of that contract, whether or not Apple wants to admit it.
This is why you always do a clean install, and organize your system such that this is not a difficult thing to do.
Of course, assembling a list of programs to install in addition to dealing with your data is a lot more difficult than the apt-get command I have to streamline the process, but a big advantage of reinstalling is all the random cruft programs that disappear.
Did you RTFA? Apple disables tethering for companies that aren't Apple partners. It has nothing to do with whether or not the carrier allows tethering. Apple is still living in a world where they can shove an authorized provider down their customer's throats, as if they weren't doing business in Europe, where the phone and the service are supposed to be separate.
Not just fraud but breach of contract. The users accepted the iPhone EULA with the understanding that tethering would work. I smell a class-action suit.
Yeah, this article smacks of telco astroturf.
Lack of widespread browser support is an issue because it makes it a more difficult business decision, because it means that if people are dealing with the website at work, they need a sysadmin that doesn't have a problem installing software (and they need to ask.) WinSCP is a good, stable solution, but just installing it is a barrier to entry. IE or even just FF support would be nice. They already have the most of the overhead in the form of SSL (but perhaps Firefox has enough bloat...)
Also, just because it's dedicated doesn't necessarily mean that the user has a high amount of control over what is there, and if the site was set up 5-10 years ago, it's entirely understandable that it's still running ftp. I think the assumption that there are admins in charge of these servers is false. Obviously, someone is in charge of the admin password, but that is not necessarily their actual job.
I know it's a little bizarre to think that there are people paying for dedicated servers without a person dedicated to maintaining the software, but I assure you they exist.
Actually, I would say the people to blame are those hosting providers who keep using ftp with weak usernames and weak passwords as the preferred way to access your website.
There was a time when the client software was insufficient to the task, that time is long gone. WinSCP is mature and easy to use. No, browsers don't offer sftp:// support natively, but the browser is not very secure anyway. Hosting providers need to get their heads out of the sand and upgrade to secure authentication.
Most of those people haven't undergone training that costs millions of dollars. People with the kind of training we put astronauts through are very difficult to replace.
'Sports' like NASCAR or the running of the bulls, not so much. I'm not arguing that the positions take skill, but if we lose skilled people, others step in from the lower ranks of people who are doing exactly the same thing to take their place. We don't have an Astronaut reserve force waiting around. I mean, we do, but they have zero experience, and have gone through the same incredibly expensive training the on-call ones did.
I'm sure you're trolling, but go back and watch The Matrix sometime. It's an excellent piece of surrealist fiction. Cheap tricks don't get that kind of play if they aren't used elegantly. Bullet time showcased the breakdown of the fabric of reality, that everything is, and yet, isn't. All the uses since have just been eye-candy.
I was just ribbing on the AC for suggesting that there was somehow an obvious solution for Windows filesharing being trash. Expecting the built-in to work with minimal configuration is natural when you're shelling out $100+ dollars.
Or at least, I would expect it to work better than XP, which from this anecdote I would say it doesn't (to speak nothing of trying to share between Vista and XP.)
Everyone's talking as if Google stands to make immense profits from this, and that these are profits that would otherwise go to the authors of these books. But I don't see how that's really the case. Is Google really going to reignite the sleeping market for out-of-print books? Aren't they usually out-of-print for a reason?
It seems like the fact is that Google is going to eat its investment on this, and then some. (Why do you think Microsoft bowed out?)
And it's not like this is some sort of new thing for Google. They make money off search. Most of the other stuff is just for fun, and loses them money.
I know right? I mean, what kind of moron uses Window's built-in filesharing. Anyone with any sense knows that the only way to transfer files between two Windows PCs is to install Openssh and use that. It astounds me that so many people are too stupid to realize these sorts of things.
If it's implemented as a Facebook extension, I imagine the server can easily be run on a server of your choice, so instead of $EVIL_CORPORATION you can run it on your own server, or at the very least the hosting provider you are paying to take care of your data.
And most of this is concept stuff anyway. Implementation for pictures would be really nice, though the program currently pulls random text off the internet to obfuscate the fact that it's not showing you the real text. That sort of scheme would be more difficult for images, assuming they have some common-sense profanity filters in place, image filters are naturally harder...
Pan's Labyrinth is a marvelous fable. The eye-candy is secondary. All I've seen is snippets of Hellboy, which is standard action-movie fare.
But on Pan's Labyrinth alone I'm willing to give the credit. No one can create something with that much depth in meaning, character, and visuals on a fluke.
Maybe his stuff isn't that great in translation? Especially when he's working in translation, like Hellboy.
A bus still tends to be better than a hybrid in passenger miles per gallon. I wasn't disputing the superiority of server CPUs for use in servers.
Although I don't think Windows 7's feature list is stable yet, and I expect to see this one pulled before the release.
Pity.
The troll is not that far off. However, a car analogy is probably better:
The ARM chip is a Prius hybrid.
The Intel Core series is a 15-year-old diesel schoolbus.
Oh no! My bureaucratic id number is in the hands of a bureaucrat!
Honestly, it's a bureaucrat's instrument and in no way related to you. Recordings of everything you do in public, now that says a good deal about you, who you are, what you do, where you go.
You'd be surprised how little a purchasing record actually tells you about a person.
But then, I suppose that does make false positives more likely on the credit card side than the CCTV side.
Any programmer that spends less than 1 second per character on their code should be shot.
3-5 seconds is to be highly encouraged.
On the other hand, there's some sort of a corollary about characters of documentation per line of code, which should probably be high enough to warrant touch typing.
Do you look at the keyboard?
Because if you use most of your fingers, and don't have to look at the keyboard, I'd say you're a touch typist, even if you don't follow the standard methodology.
That said, I think that the established methodology is sound, and you would be a faster typist if you had started with touch typing and put the time you put into your own method improving on your touch typing.
I suspect two reasons, though a cursory Google search doens't turn up much justification:
1) The frequency of the characters you type with the left hand is greater than that of the right, so it is a wear-balancing thing between the hands.
I just ran the numbers with the Wikipedia page, and it comes out to the left side's frequency being 56.101%, while the right is 42.311%. (I did not count 'b', since b is dead in the middle, though I personally use my left hand, so that's even more reason to use the right thumb.)
2) The right hand has a wider range of motion, with the pinky ready to hit enter or backspace, while the left pinky is practically on the edge of the keyboard. I suspect that being more stretched makes the right thumb more efficient at hitting the space bar.
I agree with you in general, but with a caveat. Google apps present a far better way to organize information than Exchange does. Yes, it's mature and people understand it. However, it's very difficult to properly version documents with Exchange. With Google Apps, it's effortless. Collaboration is built in. I'm working on a project right now that's split into 5 spreadsheets, and there are two separate copies, not counting the numerous copies that have been sent via e-mail as we've been modifying back and forth and making corrections.
All the spreadsheet does is track some database field names, their purposes, and equivalents in the new database. It doesn't need anything other than the basic features. What it does need is version control. Exchange not only avoids version control, it actively supports this sort of e-mail tag where everyone has several copies floating around.
Until Exchange provides proper Wiki functionality, I don't see it as a compelling alternative for someone who hasn't yet learned its ways. Unfortunately, there's a lot of training that goes out the window, and probably makes the current workforce incapable of realizing the benefits of ditching the e-mail and modify model without having the full force of the Office interface in place.
A lot of smaller bands burn their own CDs to sell at concerts. So they're paying the record companies for the privilege of copying their own music, which the record companies had no part in creating.
And where is their cut if someone copies a CD bought at one of these smaller concerts? Such bullshit.
Yes, because only aspiring dictators use bombastic rhetoric.
I'd be happy to help, but AC, you have an annoying fickleness. I'm not really sure I can trust you to follow through.