Unlike M$, Apple is paranoid and does care about its reputation.
Also unlike "M$", Apple produce their own hardware and only have to support a limited number of chips, while Windows has to run on any x86-compatible chip.
I don't go to the cinema much, but I seem to remember a brief certification logo displayed before trailers. Sometimes, in fact, it'll say that the trailer is rated 15 (say), while the film itself is 18, so that the trailer can be shown before the following (15-rated, in this example) film.
How is this different? Both are short tasters of the real thing, both real things are themselves rated; it makes sense to me that trailers should also be rated.
"Stop thinking of the children" and "this is the intarwenets and so freeeeeeeeeee!" hyperbole aside, what is the actual problem?
Tell that to a particle/anti-particle anhilation reaction. You can convert matter wholly into energy, so in that sense it most certainly is possible to destroy it. You can also create matter if you have enough energy of course - particles will spontaneously form to reduce the "free" energy.
Stop using systems that are inherently flaky. (EG: MS Windows) Move on to something that's proven to be resistant to viruses and the like.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of those systems are used almost exclusively by geeks and other more computer-savvy users. Migrate the masses from Windows to any other OS, and all the same security problems would follow, as we suddenly have tens of millions of unpatched Linux boxes connected directly to the internet with the users permanently logged in as root.
The vast majority of Windows malware requires user interaction to install in the first place. The biggest security problem of any given modern system is the human sat at the keyboard.
How so? Assuming they're not replacing the content provider's own ads, thus denying them that revenue, I don't see how they're costing him/her any money at all.
Not that I'm arguing that this is right, far from it, I think it's a despicable practice that needs to be nipped in the bud before more ISPs start doing it, as well as being flagrant copyright abuse (IANAL, etc). I just don't see how it costs the provider money is all.
Like creating a derivative work? This is taking someone else's work in transit from server to client, inserting other content into it, then sending this modified version on to the client instead.
This isn't like creating a derivative work, it is creating a derivative work. They're even profiting from it, as they're selling the ad space thus created.
How does the javascript get access to the headers, or run a traceroute?
I am well aware that the *browser* can access the headers, but as far as I know javascript only has access to a subset of these headers. Running traceroute is right out, without either an applet or Active X control.
The *connotation*, however, is becoming increasingly negative
I blame the media for that. Increasingly cases are reported on as though the guilt of the accused is in little or no doubt, especially if the case involves children and/or sexual offences.
The point is that we all know the difference between thinking about raising our right arms, and actually doing it. In one case you send electrical impulses to the relevant muscles, in the other you don't. Easy - something we all learn to do at a very early age, that doesn't require any conscious thought, and that our bodies and brains have evolved the capacity for.
The question about this sort of interface, though, is how we differentiate between an intentional thought and the sort of fleeting "What if..? No, that wouldn't work" thought that everyone has from time to time, or even an impulse to do something (hit someone who'sannoying you, throw the damn computer out of the window, etc) that tempting though it may be, you'd never actually *do*.
This isn't about not being able to control yourself, it's about being able to effectively control the device via the neural interface. It's about whether or not it can it tell the difference between (say) me being tempted to write "For fuck's sake, make a fucking decision!" but needing to write "I must stress that if a decision isn't made soon...".
Well, the BBC is publicly-funded, by a legally-mandated licence fee, but it's not part of the government. Also, while I certainly support publicly-funded things being publicly-available, I really can't see any justification at all for trying to make this an anti-trust issue. It's been a very long time indeed since the BBC was the only UK broadcaster, and they by no means have a monopoly.
My guess is that they're complaining about it now because it's a much more convincing (from a legal perspective, anyways) to complain about something that has been or is being done now, rather than something that will/may be done in the future.
The cynic in me says that it's much more expensive for MS to change the feature now, than it would have been had Google persuaded them to change it while it was still in development.
I agree with the OP - if you have a problem with a planned software feature, the time to complain is in the planning stage or at least during development. That is, if you're not trying to maximise the financial impact of any required changes.
Nope, they're not a UK thing - I've never heard either of them either. I can guess at the meaning of "folksonomy", but have absolutely no idea what "blook" would mean...
Would be a piece of software on your computer that has every possible feature anyone could want for their cell phone. Then you could drag and drop the desired features onto the phone that is plugged into your computer via USB.
That would be great, but unfortunately some features require hardware and there's nothing you can do about that. No amount of software is going to turn a x2 optical zoom lens into a x20 optical zoom lens, or a small, low res screen into a large, high res one.
That would be the perfect phone.
Even if the issue of hardware support for those features didn't exist, you still have one barrier to perfection - not everyone with a phone has a computer.
You can improve a patent and then get a different patent for it.
And you still need the original patent holder's permission to implement their patented tech, just as they need your permission to implement your improvements. Unless, of course, your "improvement" is a complete change, but then that's not an improvement...
This would be a much more worthwhile comment if you told us what version of Windows and what hard drives you were using. XP requires drivers for SATA drives, but XP was released years before SATA drives were available. You can't really fault an OS for not supporting hardware that didn't exist when it was written.
it demanded I enter all kinds of activation keys
Windows requires one activation key. If any of your application software required others, that's hardly the fault of the OS. I have used a number of applications on Linux that required licence files be copied to the appropriate place, but I'd hardly blame Linux for that.
After an hour of fiddling with it and reading the useless quickstart guide, I accidentally got infected with malware
Unless that malware exploited a hole in your fully-patched system, then again it's not the fault of the OS. If you were infected by running an executable from an untrusted source whilst logged in as an admin account, then you have only yourself to blame. Counter-anecdote - a friend of mine had to completely reformat and reinstall his Linux server a couple of months ago because it was hit by a remote exploited and rooted.
I'm not claiming Windows is perfect; far from it. However, of your complaints, the only one that is definitely justified is the lack of inclusion of an office suite. Even then, if all you want to do is write letters there's always Wordpad. Me, I only use office suites when forced to, and would personally rather not even have to uncheck it as an install option. To each their own, however.
They are other people's business, because at worst games like this provide simulation training in carrying out sadistic murders
You're right - my hours of playing FPSs has made me a crack shot, while my time spent playing Thief and similar games enables me to slip unseen past the most watchful of guards.
Do me a favour. Simulation training? I have fired countless shots by clicking a mouse button; none of that in any way prepares me for the weight or recoil of a real firearm. Engaging coloured blobs on a screen, no matter how realistically-rendered, in no way prepares me for a life or death fight with real people. Sitting on my backside for hours at a time hardly gives me the fitness or stamina to engage in prolonged combat situations.
You don't train pilots by sitting them in front of a PC or console and firing up a flight sim; you put them in a professional flight simulator which exactly reproduces the cockpit of the plane you're training them for, complete with limited freedom of motion. *Then* you put them in the real thing, with an instructor.
If you were right, we'd all learn to drive using racing games, rather than getting in a car and driving.
Again the gamer gets to make all the choices and has all the responsibility, the gamer's murder victim has no say.
Ah, my mistake, you're a troll. I forgot all gamers necessarily go on to commit murder; sorry to have taken up your valuable time.
That doesn't make them compatible. That clause allows the recipient to *change* the licence from v2 to v3 (or later). It does not allow you to mix v2-licensed code and v3-licensed code in the same binary; it means that as soon as you add in some v3-licensed code, the entire thing becomes v3-licensed.
No, Vista isn't circulated like currency, but counterfeit disks will still turn up in raids, seizures of smuggled cargo, etc.
This isn't about stopping you or me from installing a pirated copy of Vista (knowingly or unknowingly), this is about making it that bit easier to find and shut down the big counterfeiting operations.
You're thinking of copyright, not patents. Patents grant an absolute monopoly, it doesn't matter that you came up with the infringing idea/product/whatever completely independently. All that matters is whether or not you can demonstrate prior art and have the patent invalidated.
That's one of the reasons why a lot of companies file vapourware patents on ideas before they're ready to actually implement them. If they took the time to do all the research, someone else might beat them to getting the patent and they'll be in danger of having wasted their time and money. In an ideal world, of course, they could be secure in the knowledge that if they can genuinely demonstrate independent, concurrent development they would at least be granted some sort of "shared patent", but that's not the way it works.
No, as that's not what was ordered. The order was to start logging the information so that it can be submitted as evidence in the future, not to hand over the RAM chips themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Unlike M$, Apple is paranoid and does care about its reputation.
Also unlike "M$", Apple produce their own hardware and only have to support a limited number of chips, while Windows has to run on any x86-compatible chip.
I don't go to the cinema much, but I seem to remember a brief certification logo displayed before trailers. Sometimes, in fact, it'll say that the trailer is rated 15 (say), while the film itself is 18, so that the trailer can be shown before the following (15-rated, in this example) film.
How is this different? Both are short tasters of the real thing, both real things are themselves rated; it makes sense to me that trailers should also be rated.
"Stop thinking of the children" and "this is the intarwenets and so freeeeeeeeeee!" hyperbole aside, what is the actual problem?
It's not possible to destroy matter or energy
Tell that to a particle/anti-particle anhilation reaction. You can convert matter wholly into energy, so in that sense it most certainly is possible to destroy it. You can also create matter if you have enough energy of course - particles will spontaneously form to reduce the "free" energy.
The vast majority of Windows malware requires user interaction to install in the first place. The biggest security problem of any given modern system is the human sat at the keyboard.
They are costing the content provider money.
How so? Assuming they're not replacing the content provider's own ads, thus denying them that revenue, I don't see how they're costing him/her any money at all.
Not that I'm arguing that this is right, far from it, I think it's a despicable practice that needs to be nipped in the bud before more ISPs start doing it, as well as being flagrant copyright abuse (IANAL, etc). I just don't see how it costs the provider money is all.
Like creating a derivative work? This is taking someone else's work in transit from server to client, inserting other content into it, then sending this modified version on to the client instead.
This isn't like creating a derivative work, it is creating a derivative work. They're even profiting from it, as they're selling the ad space thus created.
How does the javascript get access to the headers, or run a traceroute?
I am well aware that the *browser* can access the headers, but as far as I know javascript only has access to a subset of these headers. Running traceroute is right out, without either an applet or Active X control.
Apart from that, I'd say it's an excellent idea.
The *connotation*, however, is becoming increasingly negative
I blame the media for that. Increasingly cases are reported on as though the guilt of the accused is in little or no doubt, especially if the case involves children and/or sexual offences.
It stands for Cascading Style Sheets.
(That link was the first hit on google for a search on CSS, incidentally...)
Opera is free, and has been for a while now.
The point is that we all know the difference between thinking about raising our right arms, and actually doing it. In one case you send electrical impulses to the relevant muscles, in the other you don't. Easy - something we all learn to do at a very early age, that doesn't require any conscious thought, and that our bodies and brains have evolved the capacity for.
The question about this sort of interface, though, is how we differentiate between an intentional thought and the sort of fleeting "What if..? No, that wouldn't work" thought that everyone has from time to time, or even an impulse to do something (hit someone who'sannoying you, throw the damn computer out of the window, etc) that tempting though it may be, you'd never actually *do*.
This isn't about not being able to control yourself, it's about being able to effectively control the device via the neural interface. It's about whether or not it can it tell the difference between (say) me being tempted to write "For fuck's sake, make a fucking decision!" but needing to write "I must stress that if a decision isn't made soon...".
Well, the BBC is publicly-funded, by a legally-mandated licence fee, but it's not part of the government. Also, while I certainly support publicly-funded things being publicly-available, I really can't see any justification at all for trying to make this an anti-trust issue. It's been a very long time indeed since the BBC was the only UK broadcaster, and they by no means have a monopoly.
I agree with the OP - if you have a problem with a planned software feature, the time to complain is in the planning stage or at least during development. That is, if you're not trying to maximise the financial impact of any required changes.
Nope, they're not a UK thing - I've never heard either of them either. I can guess at the meaning of "folksonomy", but have absolutely no idea what "blook" would mean...
At least since it was almost impossible to find a Linux distro that didn't install find by default, let alone [s]locate.
Of course, it depends on your definition of OS to an extent, but personally mine is a little wider than "kernel and HAL".
Would be a piece of software on your computer that has every possible feature anyone could want for their cell phone.
Then you could drag and drop the desired features onto the phone that is plugged into your computer via USB.
That would be great, but unfortunately some features require hardware and there's nothing you can do about that. No amount of software is going to turn a x2 optical zoom lens into a x20 optical zoom lens, or a small, low res screen into a large, high res one.
That would be the perfect phone.
Even if the issue of hardware support for those features didn't exist, you still have one barrier to perfection - not everyone with a phone has a computer.
You can improve a patent and then get a different patent for it.
And you still need the original patent holder's permission to implement their patented tech, just as they need your permission to implement your improvements. Unless, of course, your "improvement" is a complete change, but then that's not an improvement...
This would be a much more worthwhile comment if you told us what version of Windows and what hard drives you were using. XP requires drivers for SATA drives, but XP was released years before SATA drives were available. You can't really fault an OS for not supporting hardware that didn't exist when it was written.
it demanded I enter all kinds of activation keys
Windows requires one activation key. If any of your application software required others, that's hardly the fault of the OS. I have used a number of applications on Linux that required licence files be copied to the appropriate place, but I'd hardly blame Linux for that.
After an hour of fiddling with it and reading the useless quickstart guide, I accidentally got infected with malware
Unless that malware exploited a hole in your fully-patched system, then again it's not the fault of the OS. If you were infected by running an executable from an untrusted source whilst logged in as an admin account, then you have only yourself to blame. Counter-anecdote - a friend of mine had to completely reformat and reinstall his Linux server a couple of months ago because it was hit by a remote exploited and rooted.
I'm not claiming Windows is perfect; far from it. However, of your complaints, the only one that is definitely justified is the lack of inclusion of an office suite. Even then, if all you want to do is write letters there's always Wordpad. Me, I only use office suites when forced to, and would personally rather not even have to uncheck it as an install option. To each their own, however.
They are other people's business, because at worst games like this provide simulation training in carrying out sadistic murders
You're right - my hours of playing FPSs has made me a crack shot, while my time spent playing Thief and similar games enables me to slip unseen past the most watchful of guards.
Do me a favour. Simulation training? I have fired countless shots by clicking a mouse button; none of that in any way prepares me for the weight or recoil of a real firearm. Engaging coloured blobs on a screen, no matter how realistically-rendered, in no way prepares me for a life or death fight with real people. Sitting on my backside for hours at a time hardly gives me the fitness or stamina to engage in prolonged combat situations.
You don't train pilots by sitting them in front of a PC or console and firing up a flight sim; you put them in a professional flight simulator which exactly reproduces the cockpit of the plane you're training them for, complete with limited freedom of motion. *Then* you put them in the real thing, with an instructor.
If you were right, we'd all learn to drive using racing games, rather than getting in a car and driving.
Again the gamer gets to make all the choices and has all the responsibility, the gamer's murder victim has no say.
Ah, my mistake, you're a troll. I forgot all gamers necessarily go on to commit murder; sorry to have taken up your valuable time.
Except the BBC was found to have an innate liberal bias -- which doesn't fit with the systematic pro-censorship straw-clutching you suggest after all.
It does, if you see it as an attempt to either redress the balance, or produce "proof" that they're not liberally-biased at all...
That doesn't make them compatible. That clause allows the recipient to *change* the licence from v2 to v3 (or later). It does not allow you to mix v2-licensed code and v3-licensed code in the same binary; it means that as soon as you add in some v3-licensed code, the entire thing becomes v3-licensed.
No, Vista isn't circulated like currency, but counterfeit disks will still turn up in raids, seizures of smuggled cargo, etc.
This isn't about stopping you or me from installing a pirated copy of Vista (knowingly or unknowingly), this is about making it that bit easier to find and shut down the big counterfeiting operations.
You're thinking of copyright, not patents. Patents grant an absolute monopoly, it doesn't matter that you came up with the infringing idea/product/whatever completely independently. All that matters is whether or not you can demonstrate prior art and have the patent invalidated.
That's one of the reasons why a lot of companies file vapourware patents on ideas before they're ready to actually implement them. If they took the time to do all the research, someone else might beat them to getting the patent and they'll be in danger of having wasted their time and money. In an ideal world, of course, they could be secure in the knowledge that if they can genuinely demonstrate independent, concurrent development they would at least be granted some sort of "shared patent", but that's not the way it works.
No, as that's not what was ordered. The order was to start logging the information so that it can be submitted as evidence in the future, not to hand over the RAM chips themselves.
And what exactly would we use to measure that slowdown? A clock?