What do you have against them? The fact that they're trying to do something good? I see hypermilers around here all the time and they drive the speed limit like everyone else. They, like myself (I do try to get decent mileage on my vehicle, too; it's efficient as-is but I'd like to maximize that) drive at the speed limit.
It seems like the sneering at people who try to do the right thing mostly comes from "you're stopping me from being ahead of you by one car at the stoplight" or some other stupidity. Instead of kicking people verbally or physically just because they're trying to lessen pollution, lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, and save money, how about people kick their egos instead and try to do the right thing instead?
It is if you already have 2.0, not if you don't. (note: I am one of the people who thinks that the SOX explanation for the charges doesn't ring true, but the charge is there nevertheless).
I have a D-Link draft 802.11n router, Leopard (latest version as of today), and a Macbook Pro and it connects just fine. The problem isn't just n+leopard+Intel macs. I do not, however, have an iPod touch of any kind, just an iPhone, and that works fine with my network.
We're already owed one update this month as it is (push is missing, ahem) so hopefully that one will contain a fix for the WPA problems.
I did read the article. And I was responding to a generic comment that you can't change the laws ex post facto. Even if it is forbidden, yes they most certainly do so and somehow avoid getting held responsible. I highly doubt that there is no place where this has ever happened. On what grounds do you think I didn't read the article?
As someone with an immediate family member who is going through the naturalization process, I can say you're insane if you think moving to another country is as easy as moving down the street. And what if I like this country except for the bullshit its government does in the name of "safety"? Stop being a pile of copouts, Americans. DO SOMETHING.
I'm not discussing this anymore. Agree to disagree. No one's changed a damned thing about a damned thing, so fuck it, heads in sand, yay. I'm done with this.
"this person MUST be a troll because they dare to try to continue to get through to people, especially considering statements from the company involved in the dispute at hand regardless of the fact that other people seem to not have bothered to think about why such a statement might be made, what it actually meant in the context of the advertisement in question, and the fact that 'my pet isn't included, therefore the statement must be a lie' even though the statement had a specific meaning and was meant to be compared to other cell phones."
Fixed that for you, and I'll thank you to not be so arrogant as to put words in my mouth. Why don't you go find a real troll to harass -- one who IS actually around to cause trouble? "Someone who doesn't bow down to my every whim" doesn't count.
Uh, because dozens of people are posting dozens of ranting posts that are simply not understanding the facts and reasoning behind the statements in question?
But at this point it's "agree to disagree" because it sure as hell doesn't look like anything is getting through.
If you code the the W3C HTML standards heedless of the pitfalls of IE6/7, for example, and as a result 2/3s of real people in the real world can't use your site, you've failed to code to the industry standard.
Wrong. You can code VALID HTML that will be rendered just fine by IE as well as everything else. Do anything else and you deserve what you get when you start getting complaints that your code is junk and doesn't work. You're a pretty rotten HTML developer if you don't test your browser to make sure it validates AND works well in every browser, and you're a lazy shortsighted one if you start using crutches that break one browser to favor another. Where the heck did you get the crazy idea that it's one or the other? It's not.
Yes, yes, I know it's harder to code a site done properly that works for everybody, over being lazy and saying that non-IE users don't matter, when those non-IE users grow in number every day and will rapidly spread the word about your broken code. That's why it's called "work".
They don't advertise they have the entire Internet because they have an ugly watered-down version of it and don't adhere to standards. Apple does, so they do.
Fortunately, this isn't IRC. Fortunately, "this person MUST be a troll because they dared to disagree with me" doesn't work on this site. And by the way, call that "censorship" when someone prevents dissent from being published. That's the kind of thing totalitarian regimes, dictators, and certain US-economy-ruining communist human-rights-ignoring states do. Maybe you'd do better in one of those places.
And you people seem to be unable to comprehend the fact that "the entire Internet" means the browser actually functions according to standards (which Flash IS NOT) when other cell phone browsers don't. The iphone doesn't water down the internet the way Palm does, for instance.
The rise of the importance of the W3C HTML standard recently is nothing more than the rise of Firefox market share, and writing to that "standard" would still be a grave mistake for a commercial site - you work with IE6&7 or you've missed the boat.
I don't agree with that. The importance of the standard isn't because of any one browser maker. It's important so that not only do existing browsers work, but so will new ones in the future, and any device needing to be able to access the Web will be able to do so with complete confidence that it will function properly due to standards. Take, for example, an imaginary company that wants to make a device that can make the Web more accessible to blind users, and let blind users know not just what is written on the page but also what is embedded in that page (e.g. "there is a movie here that you won't be able to 'see' using this device", or "this is a caption for the image called foo dot jpg" (HTML5 addresses captions and such using microformats).
You are not missing the boat if you code to standards. You are writing a properly-coded site that will be rendered correctly in all browsers, as browsers are coded to respect those standards deliberately. There is no excuse for writing a standards-compliant site that will pass validation, yet will be viewable in ALL browsers. Doing otherwise has led to the morass that we're finally getting out of now that web developers are finally realizing how important standards are. If your browser doesn't render standards, then you are the one who has missed the boat.
The W3C guys were too insistant on doing things the "right way"
Why is defining a set of standards for all manufacturers and users of a given discipline 'the right way' wrong? Take for example the idea of someone deciding they didn't like wiring color standards, using black wires to carry current and not ground, and electrocuting someone who rightfully expected all applicable standards to be followed. That would be the fault of the manufacturer thinking standards were 'stupid', beneath them, or some other silliness -- and they'd get blasted for not following the proper practice of obeying standards.
Apple said and I quote "it just the Internet, on your phone." They were contrasting it's capabilities with phones that only do mobile web or can't render all of HTML.
Finally. We have a winner! I've been absolutely piled on by people who can't understand the notion of that simple fact, and are slaughtering me because they don't like their pet being left on the dock.
It's still a recipe book. It meets the requirements of being a recipe book even though it doesn't have every recipe ever invented in it. It'd be ludicrous to say "that's not a real recipe book" when your mom's apple pie isn't in it. It just means it's not YOUR idea of what a recipe book should be.
I'm not a troll just because you don't agree with the fact that not supporting every plugin under the sun doesn't mean a device isn't capable of browsing the Internet.
It's not as irrelevant as you think. Without standards we'd still be winding up with sites visible in only one browser and not another. Part of the functions of standards bodies IS also to say "this is what you must do to be able to claim adherence to this standard)". So, if you adhere to the W3C standards for HTML, you can say that your browser does indeed properly render HTML and therefore "does Web right".
And yet, there is no FTP client, and no one's screaming. Apple might someday add Flash -- they haven't said they won't, ever, they just don't intend to now -- and the wailing could be heard on Pluto.
*rolls eyes* then we are going to have to agree to disagree, since you seem to refuse to listen to me and many other people who have made a good case that they didn't lie.
Ooooh, the hyper-lazy way to "rebut" someone: steal from other people.
Where did Apple EVER imply that they supported Flash? There is NOTHING in their documentation or advertising that even mentions Flash, even as a part of the camera system. There is NOTHING in their documentation or advertising that says "we support thirdparty plugins in our browser".
Wait, what? I'm an apologist for saying it's ridiculous to bash something for performing as outlined by web standards, and ridiculous to bash something that doesn't support your pet feature? I'd say the same thing if it were Microsoft getting bashed for Windows Mobile supporting/not Flash (don't know if it does or not, don't use WM)... would that make me a Microsoft apologist too?
Why the hell are people on this site so fast to scream "Apple apologist!" even when their victim actually does not have pro-Apple bias?
Then why the hell do we have standards bodies when a company designs a widget according to standards, and then people start screaming and wailing that the widget isn't up to snuff?
In other words, the root problem is that the claim is true in light of the standards that matter, and some think tank/company/whatever thinks it's better than the actual standards body with the power to declare what those standards are.
If they want to be able to have the authority to say something like that, then why the hell aren't they part of the standards body? They're not, so this is just attention being given to yet more iphone-bashers. Again.
The way to get page views and media attention is to bitch about the iphone, apparently. And Slashdot screams out one side of its mouth that such things are ridiculous, and out the other side continues giving them attention.
As far as I'm concerned, and a lot of other people from what I've seen in the comments, it's the whole Internet as outlined in the relevant standards, and anyone who bitches that the mousetrap isn't good enough can just go build their own damn mousetrap.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you have against them? The fact that they're trying to do something good? I see hypermilers around here all the time and they drive the speed limit like everyone else. They, like myself (I do try to get decent mileage on my vehicle, too; it's efficient as-is but I'd like to maximize that) drive at the speed limit.
It seems like the sneering at people who try to do the right thing mostly comes from "you're stopping me from being ahead of you by one car at the stoplight" or some other stupidity. Instead of kicking people verbally or physically just because they're trying to lessen pollution, lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, and save money, how about people kick their egos instead and try to do the right thing instead?
But no, apparently not in our "me-first" culture.
It is if you already have 2.0, not if you don't. (note: I am one of the people who thinks that the SOX explanation for the charges doesn't ring true, but the charge is there nevertheless).
I have a D-Link draft 802.11n router, Leopard (latest version as of today), and a Macbook Pro and it connects just fine. The problem isn't just n+leopard+Intel macs. I do not, however, have an iPod touch of any kind, just an iPhone, and that works fine with my network.
We're already owed one update this month as it is (push is missing, ahem) so hopefully that one will contain a fix for the WPA problems.
I did read the article. And I was responding to a generic comment that you can't change the laws ex post facto. Even if it is forbidden, yes they most certainly do so and somehow avoid getting held responsible. I highly doubt that there is no place where this has ever happened. On what grounds do you think I didn't read the article?
As someone with an immediate family member who is going through the naturalization process, I can say you're insane if you think moving to another country is as easy as moving down the street. And what if I like this country except for the bullshit its government does in the name of "safety"? Stop being a pile of copouts, Americans. DO SOMETHING.
We can't then turn around and say that we can ignore the laws to make a person not guilty.
Two words: "Telecoms" and "Wiretapping".
Try again.
I'm not discussing this anymore. Agree to disagree. No one's changed a damned thing about a damned thing, so fuck it, heads in sand, yay. I'm done with this.
"this person MUST be a troll because they dare to try to continue to get through to people, especially considering statements from the company involved in the dispute at hand regardless of the fact that other people seem to not have bothered to think about why such a statement might be made, what it actually meant in the context of the advertisement in question, and the fact that 'my pet isn't included, therefore the statement must be a lie' even though the statement had a specific meaning and was meant to be compared to other cell phones."
Fixed that for you, and I'll thank you to not be so arrogant as to put words in my mouth. Why don't you go find a real troll to harass -- one who IS actually around to cause trouble? "Someone who doesn't bow down to my every whim" doesn't count.
Otherwise, it's "agree to disagree".
Uh, because dozens of people are posting dozens of ranting posts that are simply not understanding the facts and reasoning behind the statements in question?
But at this point it's "agree to disagree" because it sure as hell doesn't look like anything is getting through.
If you code the the W3C HTML standards heedless of the pitfalls of IE6/7, for example, and as a result 2/3s of real people in the real world can't use your site, you've failed to code to the industry standard.
Wrong. You can code VALID HTML that will be rendered just fine by IE as well as everything else. Do anything else and you deserve what you get when you start getting complaints that your code is junk and doesn't work. You're a pretty rotten HTML developer if you don't test your browser to make sure it validates AND works well in every browser, and you're a lazy shortsighted one if you start using crutches that break one browser to favor another. Where the heck did you get the crazy idea that it's one or the other? It's not.
Yes, yes, I know it's harder to code a site done properly that works for everybody, over being lazy and saying that non-IE users don't matter, when those non-IE users grow in number every day and will rapidly spread the word about your broken code. That's why it's called "work".
And again, since I'm not getting through:
They don't advertise they have the entire Internet because they have an ugly watered-down version of it and don't adhere to standards. Apple does, so they do.
*sigh*
Fortunately, this isn't IRC. Fortunately, "this person MUST be a troll because they dared to disagree with me" doesn't work on this site. And by the way, call that "censorship" when someone prevents dissent from being published. That's the kind of thing totalitarian regimes, dictators, and certain US-economy-ruining communist human-rights-ignoring states do. Maybe you'd do better in one of those places.
And you people seem to be unable to comprehend the fact that "the entire Internet" means the browser actually functions according to standards (which Flash IS NOT) when other cell phone browsers don't. The iphone doesn't water down the internet the way Palm does, for instance.
The rise of the importance of the W3C HTML standard recently is nothing more than the rise of Firefox market share, and writing to that "standard" would still be a grave mistake for a commercial site - you work with IE6&7 or you've missed the boat.
I don't agree with that. The importance of the standard isn't because of any one browser maker. It's important so that not only do existing browsers work, but so will new ones in the future, and any device needing to be able to access the Web will be able to do so with complete confidence that it will function properly due to standards. Take, for example, an imaginary company that wants to make a device that can make the Web more accessible to blind users, and let blind users know not just what is written on the page but also what is embedded in that page (e.g. "there is a movie here that you won't be able to 'see' using this device", or "this is a caption for the image called foo dot jpg" (HTML5 addresses captions and such using microformats).
You are not missing the boat if you code to standards. You are writing a properly-coded site that will be rendered correctly in all browsers, as browsers are coded to respect those standards deliberately. There is no excuse for writing a standards-compliant site that will pass validation, yet will be viewable in ALL browsers. Doing otherwise has led to the morass that we're finally getting out of now that web developers are finally realizing how important standards are. If your browser doesn't render standards, then you are the one who has missed the boat.
The W3C guys were too insistant on doing things the "right way"
Why is defining a set of standards for all manufacturers and users of a given discipline 'the right way' wrong? Take for example the idea of someone deciding they didn't like wiring color standards, using black wires to carry current and not ground, and electrocuting someone who rightfully expected all applicable standards to be followed. That would be the fault of the manufacturer thinking standards were 'stupid', beneath them, or some other silliness -- and they'd get blasted for not following the proper practice of obeying standards.
Apple said and I quote "it just the Internet, on your phone." They were contrasting it's capabilities with phones that only do mobile web or can't render all of HTML.
Finally. We have a winner! I've been absolutely piled on by people who can't understand the notion of that simple fact, and are slaughtering me because they don't like their pet being left on the dock.
It's still a recipe book. It meets the requirements of being a recipe book even though it doesn't have every recipe ever invented in it. It'd be ludicrous to say "that's not a real recipe book" when your mom's apple pie isn't in it. It just means it's not YOUR idea of what a recipe book should be.
I'm not a troll just because you don't agree with the fact that not supporting every plugin under the sun doesn't mean a device isn't capable of browsing the Internet.
It's not as irrelevant as you think. Without standards we'd still be winding up with sites visible in only one browser and not another. Part of the functions of standards bodies IS also to say "this is what you must do to be able to claim adherence to this standard)". So, if you adhere to the W3C standards for HTML, you can say that your browser does indeed properly render HTML and therefore "does Web right".
And yet, there is no FTP client, and no one's screaming. Apple might someday add Flash -- they haven't said they won't, ever, they just don't intend to now -- and the wailing could be heard on Pluto.
Waaaah, everyone's favorite SpoogePhone isn't perfect, WAAAAH!
*rolls eyes* then we are going to have to agree to disagree, since you seem to refuse to listen to me and many other people who have made a good case that they didn't lie.
Ooooh, the hyper-lazy way to "rebut" someone: steal from other people.
Where did Apple EVER imply that they supported Flash? There is NOTHING in their documentation or advertising that even mentions Flash, even as a part of the camera system. There is NOTHING in their documentation or advertising that says "we support thirdparty plugins in our browser".
Or maybe sites that want to cater to iphone users, or other phones, need to upgrade their setups.
Palm doesn't get blasted for this, do they? There's no newsworthiness in anything other than the iPhone, apparently.
Wait, what? I'm an apologist for saying it's ridiculous to bash something for performing as outlined by web standards, and ridiculous to bash something that doesn't support your pet feature? I'd say the same thing if it were Microsoft getting bashed for Windows Mobile supporting/not Flash (don't know if it does or not, don't use WM) ... would that make me a Microsoft apologist too?
Why the hell are people on this site so fast to scream "Apple apologist!" even when their victim actually does not have pro-Apple bias?
Then why the hell do we have standards bodies when a company designs a widget according to standards, and then people start screaming and wailing that the widget isn't up to snuff?
In other words, the root problem is that the claim is true in light of the standards that matter, and some think tank/company/whatever thinks it's better than the actual standards body with the power to declare what those standards are.
If they want to be able to have the authority to say something like that, then why the hell aren't they part of the standards body? They're not, so this is just attention being given to yet more iphone-bashers. Again.
The way to get page views and media attention is to bitch about the iphone, apparently. And Slashdot screams out one side of its mouth that such things are ridiculous, and out the other side continues giving them attention.
As far as I'm concerned, and a lot of other people from what I've seen in the comments, it's the whole Internet as outlined in the relevant standards, and anyone who bitches that the mousetrap isn't good enough can just go build their own damn mousetrap.
If 99% decide that your is how you spell you're, then yes it will unfortunately become true.
That just means that 99% of people can't spell and need more English classes and smacks from the 1% who don't misuse (or forget) apostrophes.