"The police once copied down my address incorrectly on a ticket (they ignored my correct address on the copy of the ticket I mailed in) causing a summons to court, a notice of default judgement against me, a notice that my ticket was unpaid"
Agreed. The judge was a douche. He should have used a little common sense and reduced the severity of the outcome, BUT the person receiving the ticket should have taken the responsibility to find out why they weren't receiving any correspondence on it and take appropriate action to get it resolved.
I like the menus on top. They are always in the same place, with the same universal picks in the same locations.
As to maximizing, you can if you like, by resizing the window. It will remember the window size next time (for instance I keep a bigger browser window than needed), but why resize a window when the extra space isn't needed? You're just wasting space. Personal preference and all.
Catastrophic? I don't think so.
The folders on the doc are starter folders (Download, Applications, Documents). If you don't like them there, you can drag them off. You realize that don't you? Takes all of 3 seconds and you never have to look at them again.
The doc is also resizable, either via the preferences/doc applet, or just by right clicking the doc and selecting preferences. You can make it minuscule, move it to any edge of the screen, or auto-hide it if it you choose.
Why would they even bother to deny it? It's not like they tried to deny their Microsoft store inspiration. If anything, they were being blatant about their inspiration.
OS X does have a nice UI. If they did take some Win 7 ideas from OS X to improve Windows, then I think they did a decent balancing job between outright copying, and failing miserably. That said, they should have paid more attention to details past the first layer of the UI. There are still far too many obscure clicks or info overload to get to specific settings, like changing an IP address for example. Although I supposed some might love to see every possible network configuration option all on one screen, a little information partitioning would go a long way. They still have to balance convenience with presentation. I think they went too far the other way in an attempt to keep the clicks to a minimum, or to hide more advanced configuration settings from the casual observer.
Windows 7 is ok, but it's still Windows, and all that the definition entails.
Yes, but it would have been much more believable had it been from an organization with no appearance of bias, or possibly a board of members made up of representatives from all the browsers being tested to ensure that there was no funny business.
An excellent point. My Sony Vaio image disks won't install on anything but the machine they shipped with. There was no mass outcry when this happened. It's being done today by most manufacturer's.
You think that Apple is excluded from that? It's a large company, just like MS, Sun, Google. It has major brand recognition. There will always be haters for all of these companies.
No one with that sort of brand recognition is exempt.
As to the whole Atom bit, Apple doesn't sell any products that use it, and I would guess that most of the hackintosh community downloads OS X from a Torrent. You can't expect a free ride for ever. For those that actually went out and purchased it for a netbook, you got what you paid for. A piece of software with no valid hardware to run it on.
I think too many people abuse Anonymous. It's become the norm on the internet. It turns rational adults into little children. They know they can say anything with impunity. No risk of repercussion. It's made the internet an adolescent playground with no adult supervision.
I think they should remove any expectation of Privacy/Anonymity, and only allow special exceptions (whistle blowers, media sources, etc, as a protected class of information).
If the trends are to be believed, they are already back peddling on their estimated barrels per day. Somehow their math seems to be 'fuzzy' already in guestimating they could produce 120m barrels/day by 2030. They've lowered it 3 times already, and we are still producing less than targeted. We're going the wrong way. Production should be going up, not down.
Considering we are producing 83m b/day, one has to question just how accurate their guestimates are.
It would be insane to withhold such information. Without said info, the industries could not prepare with new technologies to replace the old. If we were simply to 'run out' all at once, with no time to prepare, basic infrastructure would break down on a global scale, making recovery many times more difficult than if they were prepared in advance.
I've never understood these 'drill baby drill' folks. The amount of oil is finite. Given our current refining capacity, even a huge motherload would take a lot of years to develop and turn out refined oil in any quantity. Why not wean yourself off of oil while it's still reasonably cheap and viable to do so?
There are already designs for 'safe' nuclear power plants. Why aren't they investing more time and money into these?
No, you gave 4 examples, one of which was just renewing a bill that was established 3 decades before, and which would amount to political suicide if they had failed to do so.
Giving more money to HMO's is NOT reform unless you're just trying really hard to misunderstand the word.
Your Massachusetts link was for a single Republican in the year 2000, which went absolutely NO WHERE.
As to Bushes plan? Did you forget that the Republican party was in control in 2000? It didn't pass then either.
So you could do what you needed via a valid app, which from what I can see here, isn't affected by this vulnerability (I'm guessing they force a password change), or jailbreak it, and take your chances?
The point of my post is that jailbreaking allowed this vulnerability.
I'm guessing I'll be modded down for this, but I am genuinely curious about this. Why are people so against software patents? At their most basic elements, yes they are just basic math, but we are not looking at the most basic elements. The same could be said for art (just a few strokes of a brush at it's most basic level), or Music (just a few basic notes on a scale repeated over and over). The finished product gets you Mozart, and Monet.
I can see a real need to actually protect works of that sort, and give the artist/creator/designer return value for them (at least with proper limits anyway, which is a whole other discussion).
Lets face it. Linux is great, and I think it's amazing that a generally random group of people could just collaborate out of the blue and create an entire OS (and a good one at that), but there are obviously things that pay to play software offers that free variants don't. I actually think competition among pay software is one of the primary reasons it advances like it does. If it was free, I don't think it would be as advanced as it is today.
Not trying to start a flame war here, but why are folks so opposed to patenting a finished product that happens to be software?
There was one I found very interesting, from someone who was apparently present
"Oh you woulda loved where that sht was going. After several places in this part of the discussion there was a noticable shift in the audience as the ramifications of the fact that at least 2 justices were, from the mannerisms they were definitely using, and exasperation they were expressing, pretty fin pissed about software. And when I say "pretty fin pissed" well, you're just going to have to trust me if you weren't there. Some of the other justices on the other hand were just chillin in their chair, all bouncing around n stuff, not engaged hardly what so ever."
Oh, I should note that there is not additional fee to use ActiveSync on AT&T's network either. I'm really surprised Verizon is going to try and nickel and dime on that aspect.
I'm also curious as to what the 'base' cost of the droid will be monthly on Verizon? $60 bucks is expensive on AT&T, but covers the basics cell/data (no tethering and texts optional). I wonder how the two stack up? From what I'm reading, it will be $60 dollars for the 'unlimited' limited 10GB plan, on top of the monthly base charge?
Unknown. I think it's just due to the fact that tethering is a popular option among the mobile crowd. Kind of specific in it's uses, but needed by some. Possibly just to tout that they offer it while AT&T does not?
This makes the truly unlimited plan on AT&T look much better by comparison. I may not be able to tether, but the plan truly is unlimited. No 5GB limit.
I had heard the Verizon nickel and dimes to death but I had no idea they were that bad about it. Why not just be upfront in the charges and be done with it?
Pay X amount for the phone/cell service, and X amount for the data plan, or better yet, why not just offer both in a single plan that covers both? Why do they make things so crazy?
I'll ask again. Please post a link to the specific text where Apple guarantee's the 'user experience', or where they guarantee they will find and prevent all malware. Please point out where they 'claim' this.
You can't.
You've only proved that you don't like their closed system and frankly, I'm surprised you haven't been marked down for flamebait. Your post seems more based on wishful thinking hoping someone will sue Apple for malware created and injected by a 3rd party with no substance behind it other than your obvious distaste for Apple.
I will repeat for you what I've asked the others. Please point out on Apples site where they claim to scan code for malware. Just because you may think they should be doing something, doesn't' mean they are legally bound to do so. I would go so far as to guarantee that the terms of purchase specify that Apple isn't liable for content purchased via the App store, except possibly for the return price should the app be banned.
Apple tells you exactly what their looking for. Obscene material, and apps that duplicate functionality on the core OS within those apps.
Please point out anywhere on Apples site where they actively scan code for malware. Unless you can find such a claim, then there is no legal basis for your argument..
Slashdot Mirror
Per OP, the ticket was not paid:
"The police once copied down my address incorrectly on a ticket (they ignored my correct address on the copy of the ticket I mailed in) causing a summons to court, a notice of default judgement against me, a notice that my ticket was unpaid"
Agreed. The judge was a douche. He should have used a little common sense and reduced the severity of the outcome, BUT the person receiving the ticket should have taken the responsibility to find out why they weren't receiving any correspondence on it and take appropriate action to get it resolved.
Justice cuts both ways...
Mod this man up +1 Insightful...
I like the menus on top. They are always in the same place, with the same universal picks in the same locations.
As to maximizing, you can if you like, by resizing the window. It will remember the window size next time (for instance I keep a bigger browser window than needed), but why resize a window when the extra space isn't needed? You're just wasting space. Personal preference and all.
Catastrophic? I don't think so.
The folders on the doc are starter folders (Download, Applications, Documents). If you don't like them there, you can drag them off. You realize that don't you? Takes all of 3 seconds and you never have to look at them again.
The doc is also resizable, either via the preferences/doc applet, or just by right clicking the doc and selecting preferences. You can make it minuscule, move it to any edge of the screen, or auto-hide it if it you choose.
Why would they even bother to deny it? It's not like they tried to deny their Microsoft store inspiration. If anything, they were being blatant about their inspiration.
OS X does have a nice UI. If they did take some Win 7 ideas from OS X to improve Windows, then I think they did a decent balancing job between outright copying, and failing miserably. That said, they should have paid more attention to details past the first layer of the UI. There are still far too many obscure clicks or info overload to get to specific settings, like changing an IP address for example. Although I supposed some might love to see every possible network configuration option all on one screen, a little information partitioning would go a long way. They still have to balance convenience with presentation. I think they went too far the other way in an attempt to keep the clicks to a minimum, or to hide more advanced configuration settings from the casual observer.
Windows 7 is ok, but it's still Windows, and all that the definition entails.
Yes, but it would have been much more believable had it been from an organization with no appearance of bias, or possibly a board of members made up of representatives from all the browsers being tested to ensure that there was no funny business.
If there was no expectation of privacy, the court wouldn't be ordering the release of this info, no?
An excellent point. My Sony Vaio image disks won't install on anything but the machine they shipped with. There was no mass outcry when this happened. It's being done today by most manufacturer's.
You think that Apple is excluded from that? It's a large company, just like MS, Sun, Google. It has major brand recognition. There will always be haters for all of these companies.
No one with that sort of brand recognition is exempt.
As to the whole Atom bit, Apple doesn't sell any products that use it, and I would guess that most of the hackintosh community downloads OS X from a Torrent. You can't expect a free ride for ever. For those that actually went out and purchased it for a netbook, you got what you paid for. A piece of software with no valid hardware to run it on.
I think too many people abuse Anonymous. It's become the norm on the internet. It turns rational adults into little children. They know they can say anything with impunity. No risk of repercussion. It's made the internet an adolescent playground with no adult supervision.
I think they should remove any expectation of Privacy/Anonymity, and only allow special exceptions (whistle blowers, media sources, etc, as a protected class of information).
If the trends are to be believed, they are already back peddling on their estimated barrels per day. Somehow their math seems to be 'fuzzy' already in guestimating they could produce 120m barrels/day by 2030. They've lowered it 3 times already, and we are still producing less than targeted. We're going the wrong way. Production should be going up, not down.
Considering we are producing 83m b/day, one has to question just how accurate their guestimates are.
It would be insane to withhold such information. Without said info, the industries could not prepare with new technologies to replace the old. If we were simply to 'run out' all at once, with no time to prepare, basic infrastructure would break down on a global scale, making recovery many times more difficult than if they were prepared in advance.
I've never understood these 'drill baby drill' folks. The amount of oil is finite. Given our current refining capacity, even a huge motherload would take a lot of years to develop and turn out refined oil in any quantity. Why not wean yourself off of oil while it's still reasonably cheap and viable to do so?
There are already designs for 'safe' nuclear power plants. Why aren't they investing more time and money into these?
No, you gave 4 examples, one of which was just renewing a bill that was established 3 decades before, and which would amount to political suicide if they had failed to do so.
Giving more money to HMO's is NOT reform unless you're just trying really hard to misunderstand the word.
Your Massachusetts link was for a single Republican in the year 2000, which went absolutely NO WHERE.
As to Bushes plan? Did you forget that the Republican party was in control in 2000? It didn't pass then either.
Did you even read your own links?
So you could do what you needed via a valid app, which from what I can see here, isn't affected by this vulnerability (I'm guessing they force a password change), or jailbreak it, and take your chances?
The point of my post is that jailbreaking allowed this vulnerability.
Thank you. Very clear and after reading that, something I would definitely agree with. I often interchange the two without thinking about it.
It makes binding a patent to a physical transformative technology right in my mind.
I'm guessing I'll be modded down for this, but I am genuinely curious about this. Why are people so against software patents? At their most basic elements, yes they are just basic math, but we are not looking at the most basic elements. The same could be said for art (just a few strokes of a brush at it's most basic level), or Music (just a few basic notes on a scale repeated over and over). The finished product gets you Mozart, and Monet.
I can see a real need to actually protect works of that sort, and give the artist/creator/designer return value for them (at least with proper limits anyway, which is a whole other discussion).
Lets face it. Linux is great, and I think it's amazing that a generally random group of people could just collaborate out of the blue and create an entire OS (and a good one at that), but there are obviously things that pay to play software offers that free variants don't. I actually think competition among pay software is one of the primary reasons it advances like it does. If it was free, I don't think it would be as advanced as it is today.
Not trying to start a flame war here, but why are folks so opposed to patenting a finished product that happens to be software?
There was one I found very interesting, from someone who was apparently present
"Oh you woulda loved where that sht was going. After several places in this part of the discussion there was a noticable shift in the audience as the ramifications of the fact that at least 2 justices were, from the mannerisms they were definitely using, and exasperation they were expressing, pretty fin pissed about software. And when I say "pretty fin pissed" well, you're just going to have to trust me if you weren't there. Some of the other justices on the other hand were just chillin in their chair, all bouncing around n stuff, not engaged hardly what so ever."
There is no cap on the AT&T plan.
I guess you missed that part of your own post where you mentioned you have to jailbreak it?
Is there an SSH app out there?
Oh, I should note that there is not additional fee to use ActiveSync on AT&T's network either. I'm really surprised Verizon is going to try and nickel and dime on that aspect.
I'm also curious as to what the 'base' cost of the droid will be monthly on Verizon? $60 bucks is expensive on AT&T, but covers the basics cell/data (no tethering and texts optional). I wonder how the two stack up? From what I'm reading, it will be $60 dollars for the 'unlimited' limited 10GB plan, on top of the monthly base charge?
Unknown. I think it's just due to the fact that tethering is a popular option among the mobile crowd. Kind of specific in it's uses, but needed by some. Possibly just to tout that they offer it while AT&T does not?
Jailbreaking also exposes the phone to vulnerabilities, and potential legal issues regarding tethering when it's not supported by AT&T.
This makes the truly unlimited plan on AT&T look much better by comparison. I may not be able to tether, but the plan truly is unlimited. No 5GB limit.
I had heard the Verizon nickel and dimes to death but I had no idea they were that bad about it. Why not just be upfront in the charges and be done with it?
Pay X amount for the phone/cell service, and X amount for the data plan, or better yet, why not just offer both in a single plan that covers both? Why do they make things so crazy?
I'll ask again. Please post a link to the specific text where Apple guarantee's the 'user experience', or where they guarantee they will find and prevent all malware. Please point out where they 'claim' this.
You can't.
You've only proved that you don't like their closed system and frankly, I'm surprised you haven't been marked down for flamebait. Your post seems more based on wishful thinking hoping someone will sue Apple for malware created and injected by a 3rd party with no substance behind it other than your obvious distaste for Apple.
I will repeat for you what I've asked the others. Please point out on Apples site where they claim to scan code for malware. Just because you may think they should be doing something, doesn't' mean they are legally bound to do so. I would go so far as to guarantee that the terms of purchase specify that Apple isn't liable for content purchased via the App store, except possibly for the return price should the app be banned.
Apple tells you exactly what their looking for. Obscene material, and apps that duplicate functionality on the core OS within those apps.
Please point out anywhere on Apples site where they actively scan code for malware. Unless you can find such a claim, then there is no legal basis for your argument..