I've said this before in other forums. The beauty of this idea is that there will ALWAYS be a top 3% list of of abusers. This is just a scam by AT&T to get more money. If/When Verizon get's the iPhone, people will bail on AT&T in droves. This will have the effect of reducing AT&T's overloaded network, but it will still leave the users with the bill...
Your argument would work except for that fact that Linux holds a majority of web servers, yet they are arguably more secure than their Windows counterparts, with more vulnerabilities and infections being reported on Microsoft systems. Central points of access would always be the preferred infection vector to workstations.
One arc minute is 1/60 of a degree of arc. The angular diameter of the full moon or the Sun as seen from Earth is about 30 arc minutes. This image would be about 1/12 the apparent size of the Sun or the full Moon as seen from Earth.
Actually it's getting difficult to find a television that supports CableCard. They are out there, but you have to dig to find them. I found it odd that when I went to my local Best Buy, only one person even knew what it was. For some reason, manufacturers seem to be leaning away from even producing CableCard capable TV's.
I actually bought my last TV with a cable card slot, and used it for years, until my cable company (Time Warner) started charging me for it as well. Since you couldn't do Pay Per View with it, and it was in many ways less convenient than a set top box, I ended up just turning it in and getting a combo HD/PVR box since I was still paying the cable company for the card in any case.
If this comes to fruition, I for one will be a happy camper. Cable companies have gone crazy with outrageous cable and internet bills since they were deregulated. I've reduced my channel package twice in the last 5 years and my bill has still gone up. It's just adding insult to injury.
Technically no, they haven't. If child porn is found on a computer, then they have a case. The law doesn't specify as to the lengths they can go to when retrieving it.
I think it's a bit ridiculous that they are willing to waste taxpayer money on someone who obviously only did it once, probably on accident however.
Devils Advocate. Has anyone considered, what if this guy is guilty? Everyone presumes innocence and gets all outraged. What if he really did target and download it intentionally, even just that once, out of curiosity? How would they prove such? Wouldn't the perfect excuse for all offenders become "it was an accident"?
Granted, I think a little intelligence (yeah I know..that's a lot to ask of our government), would tell them that if they didn't find any recent evidence of repeat offending that chances are it was a mistake or a one time thing.
I also happen to disagree with saying someone commits a crime just by looking at this stuff. These people didn't harm these children. They may be a little sick, or best case, just curious. The person abusing these children and making these photos should be the one they go after. Child porn is abhorrent and by all means, bury the guilty, but this whole 'look at it and your just as guilty' is ridiculous.
My personal concern is that they will hold key media outlets in business, and forums where public opinion is decided. In addition, I know personally how Comcast treats it's users.
I don't want or need another Fox news with a Comcast bent. They are a private corporation, and well within their rights to censor anything on their networks.
I disagree. They are the nations 3rd largest telephone provider in addition to their internet and cable business.
Back in 2002, Comcast was the largest cable provider int he US reaching 22 million users. I can only imagine how much they've grown since then. They are still the largest cable provider in the US.
They are NOT a small company. Tie that in with MSNBC's media ties, and it is not a small deal.
The merger puts Comcast in control of MSNBC (a 24 hour news channel with an enormous impact on public opinion), CNBC (which impacts public opinion about Wall Street, now a hotly debated political question), NBC network (whose nightly news show averages eight million viewers), and 27 television stations (which generally have programs covering local news).
Not only that, but in the control they will wield is frightening (even more so considering it's Comcast). Media delivery and content control is a powerful combination that can sway millions of people considering the size of this merger.
A horrible idea. I saw this on the Today show and my first thought was that there was no way this type of merger should be allowed. They then immeidately followed up with comments that they didn't think it would be an issue to get approval for it.
WTF?
We just went through a year of hell with companies that were 'too large to fail', and now this? Are they kidding me? On top of that, the media control alone is far to dangerous to allow.
I prefer an Apple controlled approach. Why don't they authorize apps with certain access levels, so if an app is submitted and indicates it needs ACL access to the FS, and the Internet, then I would prefer that Apple runs some Apple owned and signed script that blesses that app with access to those areas, specific files, and so on. I don't want to see UAC popups on my iPhone. Seems like if these apps were given controlled acl access only to those items that they submitted and were granted, that even later add-on/back door additions to the code would still only have access to those approved functions/files. This is where a closed system is actually a benefit to joe user.
I suspect that when it comes to my phone, I'm a typical iPhone user. I have zero interest in jailbreaking my phone. There are far too many apps out there to do what you need. I don't want to mess with jailbreaking it, permission levels, UAC prompts, or anything else. I just want my phone to work, my browser to browse, and my e-mail/im clients to communicate properly when needed.
As to this article, I don't know why people are surprised. This is no different than any computer, where the user can access their own data, and rightfully so. Unfortunately, since the apps installed are not user created and owned, they are basically trusting a third party with their data just like you and I do on your computer every day. The iPhone, much like most smart phones these days, are arguably more like a PC than a simple phone. They are PC's in your pocket, and all that that entails.
The difference here is that almost EVERY app on the iPhone has some sort of tie to the internet, be that high score publishing, sharing on facebook or whatever. I don't know why that is, but simply restricting or prompting for internet access on each app doesn't seem as viable on a phone as it does on a PC. They obviously need to think a little different for the platform.
You can't have it both ways. Most patents on/. are the butt end of every joke because they should be. This one is the same, with nothing novel to offer. You may not like it, but according to the rules, which they rarely seem to follow, it's just not something that can be patented.
Honestly I never see ads anymore. Most major browsers offer adblock plus. I know I never see them. I realize this may end up putting a damper on Google's grand scheme, but it's not my job to make them revenue at my expense.
Do people actually still browse without ad blockers?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Windows defaults new users during setup to full administrators. There isn't an option to change it during the installation.
How is this the end users fault?
That's a terrible answer. If you have a user who knows no better, then the design of the OS should be changed to prevent simple mistakes. Blaming the user is foolish.
To be more generic, safety standards are designed to prevent accidents, regardless of and with full knowledge of a persons likely mistakes. An OS should be designed with the same goal in mind. Giving the user the power, and then claiming shock when they use it doesn't make a lot of sense.
I don't think the consumer will lose here. Ads are easily blocked these days. Any competition is a good thing, although I have serious doubts about Chrome and the 'cloud'. Even more so with all of these data loss reports from various vendors you would never suspect would screw up something that is so seemingly simple: A backup plan.
I also have serious doubts about Chrome as a contender in the OS market. What provisions does Chrome have for no internet connectivity? For instance, what if your a business traveler who spends a lot of time flying, or when your drunk neighbor hits the cable box with this truck and your stuck without internet for a week.
All of that said, I still think competition in web search is a good thing, no matter how you cut it. It will keep Google on it's toes, and that's a good thing.
Or perhaps people still don't like other people behaving like asses? We were raised (well most of us) to treat each other with at least civility. It grates when you read or see something like that. That's the whole idea of peer pressure.
I wish they'd do away with anonymous for trivial/unimportant information posts. It serves no purpose other than to bring out the juvenile in everyone.
"The iPhone UI sucks a lot harder than WebOSs, and it is no better than Android.
The ONLY selling point of the iPhone is the ecosystem. Brand loyalty, huge number of apps and huge installed base. The phone itself is bland compared to all the other offerings(most new phones are essentially an iPhone plus a couple other features, like a high res display or a physical keyboard), and the software is about as advanced as Palm OS 4.0. I don't know how Apple can ship a product in 2009 that doesn't support multitasking."
The iPhone multitasks just fine. It doesn't allow third party apps to do so unless you jailbreak the phone. Had you actually used one at any point, you would know that, simply by launching the iPod app. It will run happily in the background while you do other things, as does the mail app, and SMS. As to how it multitasks is just an implementation. Saying it doesn't do so because it doesn't fit your ideal for managing background apps doesn't make it 'not so'. Many OS's will simply stop a low priority background thread if the user launches a foreground task that needs the memory. Personally, I don't know why folks are wanting multitasking outside of the Apple apps. I've never felt a need other than the supplied apps. Knowing the way things work in the windows world, every app you installed would find some Apple equivalent of the System tray to load useless tasks which suck your battery dry within an hour. I prefer less hassle. The only other client I would need it on is AIM, and they will happily forward it to me as a reply-able SMS, so the point is mute.
In order to get those huge number of apps and installed base, it has to have something other than those items you mentioned. I bought one, and I had owned no previous Apple products. Just saying it's popular due to 'fanboys' is patently ridiculous and tells me your more interested in just hating Apple rather than actually using one of their products. This whole 'fanboy' bit is silly. If you buy something, anything, chances are that you are a fan. Most people who hate a product don't buy it. Working in IT, I've met all kinds, and I wouldn't classify any of them as raving lunatics. They are all people who just like Windows PC's, or Macs. They don't rave. They don't pray at the Alter of Steve. They prefer a brand and they stick with it until they find something better.
The iPhone is popular because it's pretty much a PC in your pocket. You can actually browse the web on it, the UI is arguably better than the current crop of contenders since none of these iPhone 'killers' has actually done any slaying yet. All of these followers exist in an attempt to clone the iPhone UI, and none of them have succeeded fully yet (although some of them are getting close). The app limits on Android need to be resolved before they can be considered a serious contender.
I think not. Real change didn't begin until segregation. Abolishing slavery was great and all, but it did little to change public opinion. After all, once it was abolished, they were still 'those people'. They had their own seperate place in society, and were treated as outcasts.
Segregation changed all of that. It put everyone together, where peer pressure held sway, and it forced attitudes to change as to what was socially acceptable and what was not.
"In a demonstration of that model on Wednesday a student was asked to carry 10-kilogram bags of rice. With the suit switched off he could manage up to three bags before they started to get too heavy to carry, but with the suit switched on another two bags could be loaded into his arms."
He could carry 66 lbs without the suit, and 110 lbs with the suit.
Unless these execs posted the videos personally, why are they trying to hold Google responsible? What kind of mob law does Italy follow? What was done to the boy was reprehensible, and by all means, punish the people who did this to him. I seriously doubt these execs even knew this video existed until someone told them they had been charged. Allowing public anger to dictate who can be charged as a criminal when they have done nothing wrong is just stupid not to put too fine a point on it.
Slashdot Mirror
I've said this before in other forums. The beauty of this idea is that there will ALWAYS be a top 3% list of of abusers. This is just a scam by AT&T to get more money. If/When Verizon get's the iPhone, people will bail on AT&T in droves. This will have the effect of reducing AT&T's overloaded network, but it will still leave the users with the bill...
Your argument would work except for that fact that Linux holds a majority of web servers, yet they are arguably more secure than their Windows counterparts, with more vulnerabilities and infections being reported on Microsoft systems. Central points of access would always be the preferred infection vector to workstations.
One arc minute is 1/60 of a degree of arc. The angular diameter of the full moon or the Sun as seen from Earth is about 30 arc minutes. This image would be about 1/12 the apparent size of the Sun or the full Moon as seen from Earth.
Actually it's getting difficult to find a television that supports CableCard. They are out there, but you have to dig to find them. I found it odd that when I went to my local Best Buy, only one person even knew what it was. For some reason, manufacturers seem to be leaning away from even producing CableCard capable TV's.
I actually bought my last TV with a cable card slot, and used it for years, until my cable company (Time Warner) started charging me for it as well. Since you couldn't do Pay Per View with it, and it was in many ways less convenient than a set top box, I ended up just turning it in and getting a combo HD/PVR box since I was still paying the cable company for the card in any case.
If this comes to fruition, I for one will be a happy camper. Cable companies have gone crazy with outrageous cable and internet bills since they were deregulated. I've reduced my channel package twice in the last 5 years and my bill has still gone up. It's just adding insult to injury.
Sometimes life just balances out. Should this pan out, it would be a day to celebrate. Karma is a BITCH ;)
Technically no, they haven't. If child porn is found on a computer, then they have a case. The law doesn't specify as to the lengths they can go to when retrieving it.
I think it's a bit ridiculous that they are willing to waste taxpayer money on someone who obviously only did it once, probably on accident however.
I do hope you're right and they lose their case against him. Waste of a persons life for something so stupid.
Devils Advocate. Has anyone considered, what if this guy is guilty? Everyone presumes innocence and gets all outraged. What if he really did target and download it intentionally, even just that once, out of curiosity? How would they prove such? Wouldn't the perfect excuse for all offenders become "it was an accident"?
Granted, I think a little intelligence (yeah I know..that's a lot to ask of our government), would tell them that if they didn't find any recent evidence of repeat offending that chances are it was a mistake or a one time thing.
I also happen to disagree with saying someone commits a crime just by looking at this stuff. These people didn't harm these children. They may be a little sick, or best case, just curious. The person abusing these children and making these photos should be the one they go after. Child porn is abhorrent and by all means, bury the guilty, but this whole 'look at it and your just as guilty' is ridiculous.
My personal concern is that they will hold key media outlets in business, and forums where public opinion is decided. In addition, I know personally how Comcast treats it's users.
I don't want or need another Fox news with a Comcast bent. They are a private corporation, and well within their rights to censor anything on their networks.
I disagree. They are the nations 3rd largest telephone provider in addition to their internet and cable business.
Back in 2002, Comcast was the largest cable provider int he US reaching 22 million users. I can only imagine how much they've grown since then. They are still the largest cable provider in the US.
They are NOT a small company. Tie that in with MSNBC's media ties, and it is not a small deal.
The merger puts Comcast in control of MSNBC (a 24 hour news channel with an enormous impact on public opinion), CNBC (which impacts public opinion about Wall Street, now a hotly debated political question), NBC network (whose nightly news show averages eight million viewers), and 27 television stations (which generally have programs covering local news).
Not only that, but in the control they will wield is frightening (even more so considering it's Comcast). Media delivery and content control is a powerful combination that can sway millions of people considering the size of this merger.
A horrible idea. I saw this on the Today show and my first thought was that there was no way this type of merger should be allowed. They then immeidately followed up with comments that they didn't think it would be an issue to get approval for it.
WTF?
We just went through a year of hell with companies that were 'too large to fail', and now this? Are they kidding me? On top of that, the media control alone is far to dangerous to allow.
Who's minding the chicken coup?
Disappointing. If the infrastructure is already built in, you would think it would be somewhat trivial to enable and enforce those policies.
Odd that they haven't done so already.
I prefer an Apple controlled approach. Why don't they authorize apps with certain access levels, so if an app is submitted and indicates it needs ACL access to the FS, and the Internet, then I would prefer that Apple runs some Apple owned and signed script that blesses that app with access to those areas, specific files, and so on. I don't want to see UAC popups on my iPhone. Seems like if these apps were given controlled acl access only to those items that they submitted and were granted, that even later add-on/back door additions to the code would still only have access to those approved functions/files. This is where a closed system is actually a benefit to joe user.
I suspect that when it comes to my phone, I'm a typical iPhone user. I have zero interest in jailbreaking my phone. There are far too many apps out there to do what you need. I don't want to mess with jailbreaking it, permission levels, UAC prompts, or anything else. I just want my phone to work, my browser to browse, and my e-mail/im clients to communicate properly when needed.
As to this article, I don't know why people are surprised. This is no different than any computer, where the user can access their own data, and rightfully so. Unfortunately, since the apps installed are not user created and owned, they are basically trusting a third party with their data just like you and I do on your computer every day. The iPhone, much like most smart phones these days, are arguably more like a PC than a simple phone. They are PC's in your pocket, and all that that entails.
The difference here is that almost EVERY app on the iPhone has some sort of tie to the internet, be that high score publishing, sharing on facebook or whatever. I don't know why that is, but simply restricting or prompting for internet access on each app doesn't seem as viable on a phone as it does on a PC. They obviously need to think a little different for the platform.
You can't have it both ways. Most patents on /. are the butt end of every joke because they should be. This one is the same, with nothing novel to offer. You may not like it, but according to the rules, which they rarely seem to follow, it's just not something that can be patented.
Honestly I never see ads anymore. Most major browsers offer adblock plus. I know I never see them. I realize this may end up putting a damper on Google's grand scheme, but it's not my job to make them revenue at my expense.
Do people actually still browse without ad blockers?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Windows defaults new users during setup to full administrators. There isn't an option to change it during the installation.
How is this the end users fault?
That's a terrible answer. If you have a user who knows no better, then the design of the OS should be changed to prevent simple mistakes. Blaming the user is foolish.
To be more generic, safety standards are designed to prevent accidents, regardless of and with full knowledge of a persons likely mistakes. An OS should be designed with the same goal in mind. Giving the user the power, and then claiming shock when they use it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Do you think mail is the only used aspect of an OS?
So in order to use your OS, you must then pay the airlines an outrageous fee?
Really? That's your answer to the cloud issue?
Until you lose your internet connection..
I don't think the consumer will lose here. Ads are easily blocked these days. Any competition is a good thing, although I have serious doubts about Chrome and the 'cloud'. Even more so with all of these data loss reports from various vendors you would never suspect would screw up something that is so seemingly simple: A backup plan.
I also have serious doubts about Chrome as a contender in the OS market. What provisions does Chrome have for no internet connectivity? For instance, what if your a business traveler who spends a lot of time flying, or when your drunk neighbor hits the cable box with this truck and your stuck without internet for a week.
All of that said, I still think competition in web search is a good thing, no matter how you cut it. It will keep Google on it's toes, and that's a good thing.
Or perhaps people still don't like other people behaving like asses? We were raised (well most of us) to treat each other with at least civility. It grates when you read or see something like that. That's the whole idea of peer pressure.
I wish they'd do away with anonymous for trivial/unimportant information posts. It serves no purpose other than to bring out the juvenile in everyone.
"The iPhone UI sucks a lot harder than WebOSs, and it is no better than Android.
The ONLY selling point of the iPhone is the ecosystem. Brand loyalty, huge number of apps and huge installed base. The phone itself is bland compared to all the other offerings(most new phones are essentially an iPhone plus a couple other features, like a high res display or a physical keyboard), and the software is about as advanced as Palm OS 4.0. I don't know how Apple can ship a product in 2009 that doesn't support multitasking."
The iPhone multitasks just fine. It doesn't allow third party apps to do so unless you jailbreak the phone. Had you actually used one at any point, you would know that, simply by launching the iPod app. It will run happily in the background while you do other things, as does the mail app, and SMS. As to how it multitasks is just an implementation. Saying it doesn't do so because it doesn't fit your ideal for managing background apps doesn't make it 'not so'. Many OS's will simply stop a low priority background thread if the user launches a foreground task that needs the memory. Personally, I don't know why folks are wanting multitasking outside of the Apple apps. I've never felt a need other than the supplied apps. Knowing the way things work in the windows world, every app you installed would find some Apple equivalent of the System tray to load useless tasks which suck your battery dry within an hour. I prefer less hassle. The only other client I would need it on is AIM, and they will happily forward it to me as a reply-able SMS, so the point is mute.
In order to get those huge number of apps and installed base, it has to have something other than those items you mentioned. I bought one, and I had owned no previous Apple products. Just saying it's popular due to 'fanboys' is patently ridiculous and tells me your more interested in just hating Apple rather than actually using one of their products. This whole 'fanboy' bit is silly. If you buy something, anything, chances are that you are a fan. Most people who hate a product don't buy it. Working in IT, I've met all kinds, and I wouldn't classify any of them as raving lunatics. They are all people who just like Windows PC's, or Macs. They don't rave. They don't pray at the Alter of Steve. They prefer a brand and they stick with it until they find something better.
The iPhone is popular because it's pretty much a PC in your pocket. You can actually browse the web on it, the UI is arguably better than the current crop of contenders since none of these iPhone 'killers' has actually done any slaying yet. All of these followers exist in an attempt to clone the iPhone UI, and none of them have succeeded fully yet (although some of them are getting close). The app limits on Android need to be resolved before they can be considered a serious contender.
Lol. Make that desegregation. ;)
I think not. Real change didn't begin until segregation. Abolishing slavery was great and all, but it did little to change public opinion. After all, once it was abolished, they were still 'those people'. They had their own seperate place in society, and were treated as outcasts.
Segregation changed all of that. It put everyone together, where peer pressure held sway, and it forced attitudes to change as to what was socially acceptable and what was not.
Humans learn social skills in this manner.
I don't believe I'm confusing them at all.
From TFA comments:
"In a demonstration of that model on Wednesday a student was asked to carry 10-kilogram bags of rice. With the suit switched off he could manage up to three bags before they started to get too heavy to carry, but with the suit switched on another two bags could be loaded into his arms."
He could carry 66 lbs without the suit, and 110 lbs with the suit.
Unless these execs posted the videos personally, why are they trying to hold Google responsible? What kind of mob law does Italy follow? What was done to the boy was reprehensible, and by all means, punish the people who did this to him. I seriously doubt these execs even knew this video existed until someone told them they had been charged. Allowing public anger to dictate who can be charged as a criminal when they have done nothing wrong is just stupid not to put too fine a point on it.