Apple would be no more forced to apply by the same rules as Microsoft, than you are forced to spent the rest of your days in prison, just because someone else was sentenced that for their crime.
Or rather, because someone else was sentenced for the same crime you've committed.
Explain how Apple has engaged in anti-competitive behavior with its tiny OS market share and still-small smartphone market share. (Especially in the EU. Its market share in Europe is even smaller than in the US)
What's your point? All that matters is price/performance. If processor A can get the job done more cheaply with twice the processors, why would I care?
Because the cost of powering and heating those extra CPUs is not trivial for large-scale deployments.
It's certainly possible that your.edu's lawyers are bigger asshats that most lawyers, but I can't imagine that this EULA is any worse than the one your.edu signed with Microsoft for Windows, or for the other proprietary Windows-only software that you said you use.
Which is the whole point. There is a right way and a wrong way to build a mechanical throttle assembly and cable. There are also right and wrong ways to build electronic throttles. Either system can be perfectly safe if designed and manufactured with proper tolerances.
I swear, it seems Google bucks every bad trend in the software/IT industry.
Here's Bruce Schneier pointing out the problems with such strategies in 1998. Point #3 is probably most salient in this case, but Chromium isn't open source, so the first two are still valid.
Totally different. Schneier is talking about putting up money to "prove" that a given product has no bugs. Google is smart enough to know that every product has bugs, and is just giving an incentive for people to find them (or more likely, for the finders to report them.)
I live in Manhattan, and I own an iPhone. Believe me, I know about all the problems. I complain a lot to my friends.
But they're clearly trying to climb on top of this. They're opening up about the problems, and they had that incident a month ago or so when they stopped selling iPhones. They're trying to figure it out.
I ran a dial-up ISP in the 90's. Tons of people came on to the net, and everyone in the business was trying like crazy to grow their phone banks and their networks to handle the new people. Back then everyone complained about their ISP -- it was hard to keep up.
That's what's happening now with wireless. Everyone is starting to use lots of data. Three years ago, almost no one used wireless net access. Three years from now, almost everyone in the city will want to be able to stream video to their phones at the same time. All of that infrastructure has to be built, and all of it has to be financed. Imagine if some other major chunk of infrastructure had to be built from the ground up -- electrical wiring, or roads, or whatever. It's a big job.
The transition is inevitably going to be bloody. We just need AT&T to be open about it, and to really step up and try to keep up with the growth. When they come clean like this, it's a very positive sign. And once everyone's online, and the growth stabilizes, things will get a lot better.
(I realize that no one will buy this. But I figured I'd put it out there anyway.)
If ATT had been honest about this of if they'd even shut up and not commented, nobody would be bashing anything. Everybody knows that building out a network takes time. But ATT has consistently been denying any issues whatsoever, claiming that its network was the fastest, most reliable, largest, most advanced, shiniest network on Earth, and that any customer who claimed otherwise was a lying, mentally retarded psychopath for suggesting so. Even to the point where its PR people were arguing openly with bloggers who had collected hundreds of reports from angry customers.
If you're going to wish for something unrealistic and beyond their power, at least shoot for world peace.
Okay, so there are three possible visions of the future Web:
1. The AdobeWeb, where every page is just an empty shell around an embedded SWF. There is some risk that this may happen.
2. The SilverWeb, where every page is just an empty shell around an embedded Silverlight object. With ActiveX barely treading water, this is Microsoft's forlorn hope.
3. The iPhone Web, where every page is HTML+JavaScript and scales nicely to small screen sizes.
Personally, I like option 3 the best. And only Apple (and possibly Google, eventually) are backing this horse.
People make mistakes with technology which results in unintended consequences. Giving someone treatment for the wrong disease may have adverse side effects.
Basically this only proves that people are stupid in general. I don't see anything wrong with this technology.
So you don't see a problem with a machine that may be deadly if used improperly, but is too complicated for the intended users to use properly?
Can you give me an idea of where you live? Because I'd sure love to move to wherever it is that all users are mistake-free geniuses.
Morality in the face of danger is what makes some people noble, and others scum. you are dead wrong that "everyone" will act like this when faced with hunger and thirst.
You say that from your well-heated basement with Mom's fridge stocked full of frozen pizza upstairs.
If your kid hasn't eaten for four days, your wife's legs are crushed and need to be amputated, but there's no antiseptic or surgeons for miles, and you're all sleeping under a tree, then being "scum" is not what you're worried about.
Unless you are trying to show how effective the counter-terrorism operations have been, it's unclear exactly what your numbers are meant to show.
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm. Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Thank you, dear. Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away. Homer: Oh, how does it work? Lisa: It doesn’t work. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you? Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
You may have missed a whole series of antitrust cases in EU and US...
That's the point. In every other case of government-corporate head butting, the corporation may have complained loudly (sometimes in court) but never before has one just said, "No, we won't play by your rules."
....from what I hear, the people who keep thrusting IE6 on people like a poisoned dagger are IT departments, but aren't IT departments supposed to be staffed by, you know, techies? The kind of people who go to nerdy sites like/. and should know IE6 sucks rat balls?...
Unfortunately, most IT departments have no say in budgets. So if the IT department spent eleventy billion dollars in 1999 for the snazzy new ERP system in the midst of The Bubble and Y2K, and management is not willing to replace/upgrade/mainain it anymore....they're stuck supporting (and mandating) whatever will work with that system's broken HTML-JS output.
But yeah, there are a lot of clueless departments out there, too.
By submitting any photo or information to Gawker Media, you hereby represent and warrant that the submitted photo or information does not and shall not infringe on any copyright, any rights of privacy or publicity of any person, or any other right of any third party, and you have the right to grant any and all rights and licenses granted to Gawker Media herein, including but not limited to all necessary rights under copyright, free and clear of any claims or encumbrances;
That makes it pretty clear that they don't expect people to share information illegally.
I guess everyone involved gets some publicity though.
No, it doesn't. The disclaimer only covers copyright violations. There are plenty of laws you can break besides copyright law.
Nokia is at the forefront of cellular hardware R&D, they are hardly the patent trolls Apple fanboys are making them out to be.
Nobody is accusing Nokia of being a patent troll. Everybody knows that Nokia is an actual company that does actually sell products.
Nokia's alleged abuse of patent law comes from them trying to charge Apple more than the going rate that it charges to Motorola or Samsung or RIM for the same tech. That's just anti-competitive, plain and simple.
I would think it would be obvious why they put contacts on rabbits. They tried it on cats, but they gave up after they had to amputate a scientist's arm from the claw damage.
Spoken like someone who has never had to deal with a threatened rabbit. (Hint: they have claws, too.)
I don't think so. I managed to insult both the Slashdot-nerd crowd, and the regular-Joe-Shmoe crowd. I think that makes me the smuggest, most arrogant bastard going.
Thanks for acknowledging that achievement, though!
Slashdot Mirror
Apple would be no more forced to apply by the same rules as Microsoft, than you are forced to spent the rest of your days in prison, just because someone else was sentenced that for their crime.
Or rather, because someone else was sentenced for the same crime you've committed.
Explain how Apple has engaged in anti-competitive behavior with its tiny OS market share and still-small smartphone market share. (Especially in the EU. Its market share in Europe is even smaller than in the US)
What's your point? All that matters is price/performance. If processor A can get the job done more cheaply with twice the processors, why would I care?
Because the cost of powering and heating those extra CPUs is not trivial for large-scale deployments.
You seem to forget that video is not the only thing people use Flash for.
Which is a phenomenal reason why people should not use Flash for video.
Because it's erasable. Use a hard (light) pencil to avoid smearing, or recopy later.
Also, not having a laptop discourages you from checking email, facebook, or playing games.
Pay $100 for the iPhone developer program and you can do whatever you want to your own iPhone, iPod Touch, or iPad.
Just reigister and download the SDK. Unless you want to distribute your apps on the store, there's no reason to pay for the developer program.
http://developer.apple.com/iphone/program/university.html
It's certainly possible that your .edu's lawyers are bigger asshats that most lawyers, but I can't imagine that this EULA is any worse than the one your .edu signed with Microsoft for Windows, or for the other proprietary Windows-only software that you said you use.
unless they are built wrong.
Which is the whole point. There is a right way and a wrong way to build a mechanical throttle assembly and cable. There are also right and wrong ways to build electronic throttles. Either system can be perfectly safe if designed and manufactured with proper tolerances.
I swear, it seems Google bucks every bad trend in the software/IT industry.
Here's Bruce Schneier pointing out the problems with such strategies in 1998. Point #3 is probably most salient in this case, but Chromium isn't open source, so the first two are still valid.
Totally different. Schneier is talking about putting up money to "prove" that a given product has no bugs. Google is smart enough to know that every product has bugs, and is just giving an incentive for people to find them (or more likely, for the finders to report them.)
I live in Manhattan, and I own an iPhone. Believe me, I know about all the problems. I complain a lot to my friends.
But they're clearly trying to climb on top of this. They're opening up about the problems, and they had that incident a month ago or so when they stopped selling iPhones. They're trying to figure it out.
I ran a dial-up ISP in the 90's. Tons of people came on to the net, and everyone in the business was trying like crazy to grow their phone banks and their networks to handle the new people. Back then everyone complained about their ISP -- it was hard to keep up.
That's what's happening now with wireless. Everyone is starting to use lots of data. Three years ago, almost no one used wireless net access. Three years from now, almost everyone in the city will want to be able to stream video to their phones at the same time. All of that infrastructure has to be built, and all of it has to be financed. Imagine if some other major chunk of infrastructure had to be built from the ground up -- electrical wiring, or roads, or whatever. It's a big job.
The transition is inevitably going to be bloody. We just need AT&T to be open about it, and to really step up and try to keep up with the growth. When they come clean like this, it's a very positive sign. And once everyone's online, and the growth stabilizes, things will get a lot better.
(I realize that no one will buy this. But I figured I'd put it out there anyway.)
If ATT had been honest about this of if they'd even shut up and not commented, nobody would be bashing anything. Everybody knows that building out a network takes time. But ATT has consistently been denying any issues whatsoever, claiming that its network was the fastest, most reliable, largest, most advanced, shiniest network on Earth, and that any customer who claimed otherwise was a lying, mentally retarded psychopath for suggesting so. Even to the point where its PR people were arguing openly with bloggers who had collected hundreds of reports from angry customers.
I rather have Apple kill Flash.
If you're going to wish for something unrealistic and beyond their power, at least shoot for world peace.
Okay, so there are three possible visions of the future Web:
1. The AdobeWeb, where every page is just an empty shell around an embedded SWF. There is some risk that this may happen.
2. The SilverWeb, where every page is just an empty shell around an embedded Silverlight object. With ActiveX barely treading water, this is Microsoft's forlorn hope.
3. The iPhone Web, where every page is HTML+JavaScript and scales nicely to small screen sizes.
Personally, I like option 3 the best. And only Apple (and possibly Google, eventually) are backing this horse.
"Chrome" has long been the term for the browser's UI...the toolbars, status bars, and such that surround the content.
Google calling its browser "Chrome(tm)" would be like calling an operating system "Windows(tm)."
People make mistakes with technology which results in unintended consequences. Giving someone treatment for the wrong disease may have adverse side effects.
Basically this only proves that people are stupid in general. I don't see anything wrong with this technology.
So you don't see a problem with a machine that may be deadly if used improperly, but is too complicated for the intended users to use properly?
Can you give me an idea of where you live? Because I'd sure love to move to wherever it is that all users are mistake-free geniuses.
Morality in the face of danger is what makes some people noble, and others scum. you are dead wrong that "everyone" will act like this when faced with hunger and thirst.
You say that from your well-heated basement with Mom's fridge stocked full of frozen pizza upstairs.
If your kid hasn't eaten for four days, your wife's legs are crushed and need to be amputated, but there's no antiseptic or surgeons for miles, and you're all sleeping under a tree, then being "scum" is not what you're worried about.
Unless you are trying to show how effective the counter-terrorism operations have been, it's unclear exactly what your numbers are meant to show.
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
HDMI is fine
Ethernet is fine
No more "super cables" for the sake of another super cable so i have to replace everything i own just to run a damned super cable.
Thanks.
Tell me about it. Composite video worked fine for my TV and Apple II. 29.97 field-per-second interlaced NTSC ought to be enough for anybody.
Now get off my lawn.
You may have missed a whole series of antitrust cases in EU and US...
That's the point. In every other case of government-corporate head butting, the corporation may have complained loudly (sometimes in court) but never before has one just said, "No, we won't play by your rules."
vanyel,
Please remove the extraneous text from the bottom of your message. It is unprofessional and may distract outside clients.
Also, please use our company's standard disclaimer signature, per our policy on email security.
Thanks,
Your Boss.
....from what I hear, the people who keep thrusting IE6 on people like a poisoned dagger are IT departments, but aren't IT departments supposed to be staffed by, you know, techies? The kind of people who go to nerdy sites like /. and should know IE6 sucks rat balls?...
Unfortunately, most IT departments have no say in budgets. So if the IT department spent eleventy billion dollars in 1999 for the snazzy new ERP system in the midst of The Bubble and Y2K, and management is not willing to replace/upgrade/mainain it anymore....they're stuck supporting (and mandating) whatever will work with that system's broken HTML-JS output.
But yeah, there are a lot of clueless departments out there, too.
...Without official confirmation of a specific NDA, there's no reason this should be illegal....
The existence of contracts, including NDAs, do not have to be disclosed to anyone other than the signatories.
This is a clause from Gawkers contest rules:
By submitting any photo or information to Gawker Media, you hereby represent and warrant that the submitted photo or information does not and shall not infringe on any copyright, any rights of privacy or publicity of any person, or any other right of any third party, and you have the right to grant any and all rights and licenses granted to Gawker Media herein, including but not limited to all necessary rights under copyright, free and clear of any claims or encumbrances;
That makes it pretty clear that they don't expect people to share information illegally.
I guess everyone involved gets some publicity though.
No, it doesn't. The disclaimer only covers copyright violations. There are plenty of laws you can break besides copyright law.
Nokia is at the forefront of cellular hardware R&D, they are hardly the patent trolls Apple fanboys are making them out to be.
Nobody is accusing Nokia of being a patent troll. Everybody knows that Nokia is an actual company that does actually sell products.
Nokia's alleged abuse of patent law comes from them trying to charge Apple more than the going rate that it charges to Motorola or Samsung or RIM for the same tech. That's just anti-competitive, plain and simple.
Yes, when I am confronted with an RCA TV, the first thing I think is, "a legitimate company produced this."
Some people are old enough to remember when there was an actual legitimate RCA.
Now get off my lawn.
I would think it would be obvious why they put contacts on rabbits. They tried it on cats, but they gave up after they had to amputate a scientist's arm from the claw damage.
Spoken like someone who has never had to deal with a threatened rabbit. (Hint: they have claws, too.)
You had a nuclear reactor at your university?
Lots of big universities have nuclear reactors. Mine did, though it has since been dismantled.
They were all the rage during the middle of the century. Gotta get budding engineers and scientists ready for the Atomic Age!
Could you be any more smug and arrogant?
I don't think so. I managed to insult both the Slashdot-nerd crowd, and the regular-Joe-Shmoe crowd. I think that makes me the smuggest, most arrogant bastard going.
Thanks for acknowledging that achievement, though!