Nobody in Apple's target market gives a shit about this. "Oh, I'd really like an iPhone, but they were mean and made Opera cry!"
True, Apple isn't going to lose any device customers over this. They very well may continue to hurt themselves with regard to developer participation though. At this point I would never consider relying on Apple as the target platform for mobile software. I would target my software for Android, since I know it's not going to get banned for arbitrary reasons, and consider Apple's platforms as no more than a secondary market. If Apple decided to block my software I would still have a market to sell it in.
This isn't a technological issue. Its a social issue. And the so-called "social" generation sure as hell should understand that aspect of it!
It's hard for someone like me in their 30s to make that assertion when I know that, for many young people today, things like Facebook have been online for as long as the young people have. They don't remember a time before that, it's always been there so they may assume that it always will be.
But of course, that's the whole problem with the current generation of youth -- they use all of these things on trust with no understanding of how, when or why that trust might be abused.
This is not limited to the current generation. That general sentiment applies to all generations. Young people are naive and idealistic, that's nothing new. It's not fair to assume that this generation is fundamentally any different from any other and that they would actively seek out things like privacy information from the services they use. The environment they are growing up in is different than that of previous generations, but the people are probably much the same. The problem is that education has not kept up with the environment they live in because of how quickly it changed. In the future, I'm sure we'll see classes like home economics and wood shop replaced with things like protecting your privacy online, and possibly legislation which limits the personal data that any site can collect or store from people under a certain age.
Yes, it is. The question at hand is "can 15-year old girls be expected to have knowledge of basic data security?" How much data security knowledge did you have when you were 15? When I was 15, the beginning and end of data security for me was a really noisy tape backup drive (which, incidentally, I couldn't recover anything from now even if I wanted to).
Designers? Are you serious? Do you actually believe there was an architected plan for Facebook in any incarnation at any time in its life?
I think it's obvious that a lot of thought and usability testing went into the interface design for Facebook. As evidence, I submit the fact that there are 500 million people who are able to use Facebook, but are still unable to tell the difference between Facebook and this site, much less how to get to Facebook at all. The comments on that article show just how intelligent many Facebook users are when it comes to internet technology, but they are still able to use Facebook.
I'm not sure what happened to Ray, I haven't seen or heard from him for a while either. He's still updating his blog, so hopefully he's just busy doing the good work that has earned him so much respect.
If she grew up in the internet age, she has no excuse not to understand the technology.
That's completely ridiculous. You think that every kid that owns an iPhone understands things like HTTP, iOS, Bluetooth, and the 802.11 specs? Do they also understand database clusters, content delivery networks, event-based user interfaces and load balancing? Should all Facebook users be expected to understand how memcached works?
The point of a device like the iPhone, or a service like Facebook, is explicitly that you do not need to understand how the technology works in order to use it. This is the "black-box" approach to abstract programming that you learn about in year 1 of computer science classes. It's the same reason I can hit a button on a toaster and get toast without needing to know exactly how the coils heat up or the timer works.
I wouldn't say she "deserves" to lose her data, but she really should know better.
No, there is in fact no reason why she should know better. In fact, it's up to the designers of the technology to consider users like her and make their services easier to use and more suited to the needs of users that don't understand how it works. Apple understands this concept. You do not. You may be the guy who designs software and interfaces with the expectation that the kids using the service understand all of the terminology you're using and all of the ramifications involved. That's how you alienate your prospective user base. Facebook makes it easy to upload pictures, they should also make it easy to download them. It would be nice if you could download the original version, but that's asking a bit much for a social networking site instead of an image dump.
Pictures: Anyone who does not keep a local copy is an idiot and probably deserves to lose em!
Yeah submitter, that's right, your 15-year old daughter who grew up in the internet age is an idiot who deserves to lose her memories. Thankfully, we have people like Carrot007 to help point this out.
Well, it's neither I suppose. Call me crazy, but when I'm using a piece of software designed for creating internet content, for some reason I don't expect the thing to explode if it has a file open from a network share, and all of a sudden loses network connectivity. Now I might just be a strange guy, but I would expect that application to allow me to save the file, you know the file loaded in memory that it currently has open, which I can still use, to a local storage device. Flash doesn't allow that, if it loses its connection to the file it has open, you cannot save it at all, anywhere. This has been true for the last 10 years or so, at least. Macromedia's, and now Adobe's, answer to why this happens is that they "don't support using Flash in a network environment". Did I mention this is software for creating online content? Even my most basic text editor will let me save the current file anywhere I can reach, regardless of whether or not it still has access to the location the file was opened from.
Flash is notorious for crashing, ActionScript has a great feature called "silent failure", and everything bad I've seen happen with Flash happens to everyone in the office on a variety of operating systems, not just me. ActionScript 3 finally somewhat represents a respectable programming language, but then they go and screw up the UI so badly that it decides it needs to freeze for several seconds any time anything gets clicked on, which is another great feature of the software.
This is not true from any field or culture I am familiar with. Where do you derive this belief from?
This is generally true in human cultures, here on the planet Earth. For example, this is at the top of the page on the Wikipedia definition for "first":
First or Josh may refer to: The ordinal form of the number one
You can also see on the page for one that the ordinal form of the number is, in fact, "first".
Just like "second" is the ordinal form of the number two, "first" is the ordinal form of the number one. Therefore, "the first version" is version 1, by definition. The ordinal form of the number zero is "zeroth" or "noughth", and I don't see a lot of fields or cultures using that form to describe the initial item in a series.
Anyway, I guess that's where I "derive the belief" that "one" and "first" indicate the same thing.
I understand, I'm a C-trained programmer as well, it just makes sense that "the first version" is version 1. This is human speech I'm talking about, not a memory offset.
I also might just have a small pet peeve about applications starting their versioning at anything other than 1, seeing as how the number 1 represents "the first".
Compare and contrast with HTML authoring tools, the best of which (Dreamweaver) has also been in the works for 12 years, a good portion of which was financed by a corporation as large, wealthy and experienced as Adobe, and yet allows you to use only a tiny subset of the current HTML+CSS standards using its 'visual' tools.
Bah. I've been forced to work with Flash, my opinion of Adobe's developers has been decreasing for years and years. Maybe if they fix the bugs in Flash that have been there since version 5 I'll change my tune.
I'm going to simultaneously gloat that my browser of choice has the highest rating, and also point out that IE9 has gone from 28% to 58% in 5 months, and Firefox went from 61% to 78% in 7 months. IE in general went from 0 to 58%, more than half of the spec, in 17 months and SVG isn't even the main purpose of the application.
I can sympathize with independent developers, but 8-12 years is quite a while to implement this.
Seems like a really long time to implement SVG. Apparently Inkscape started in 2003 as a fork of another project which started in 1999 (which itself was based on yet another project). So they have been working on implementing SVG for 8 years, at a minimum? Assuming the forked project also had some support for SVG, we're looking at an SVG implementation that has been in the works for 12 years now.
In 1999, IE became the most-used web browser, IE5 was released and bundled with Win98 SE, the Mozilla Organization was enjoying its first birthday, Netscape 4.x was widely wreaking havoc, and somewhere, some developers got together to start implementing SVG...
In other words, this group of developers has been attempting to implement SVG since the W3C started developing it, and hasn't succeeded yet.
How do you know that this isn't Psy Ops to get us to attack oil-rich Libya?
Ah, Psy Ops, the new catch-all conspiracy theory.
We aren't attacking Libya, we're attacking Gaddafi. Gaddafi and Libya are at war, and the world has appeared to side with Libya.
There's also no reason why the US has to be the one to defend Libya from Gaddafi. There are plenty of other nations, including much of the Arab League, that aren't very fond of him.
And if we wanted Libya's oil, we would have made him a deal for it. There are already plenty of international oil companies operating there.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody in Apple's target market gives a shit about this. "Oh, I'd really like an iPhone, but they were mean and made Opera cry!"
True, Apple isn't going to lose any device customers over this. They very well may continue to hurt themselves with regard to developer participation though. At this point I would never consider relying on Apple as the target platform for mobile software. I would target my software for Android, since I know it's not going to get banned for arbitrary reasons, and consider Apple's platforms as no more than a secondary market. If Apple decided to block my software I would still have a market to sell it in.
This isn't a technological issue. Its a social issue. And the so-called "social" generation sure as hell should understand that aspect of it!
It's hard for someone like me in their 30s to make that assertion when I know that, for many young people today, things like Facebook have been online for as long as the young people have. They don't remember a time before that, it's always been there so they may assume that it always will be.
But of course, that's the whole problem with the current generation of youth -- they use all of these things on trust with no understanding of how, when or why that trust might be abused.
This is not limited to the current generation. That general sentiment applies to all generations. Young people are naive and idealistic, that's nothing new. It's not fair to assume that this generation is fundamentally any different from any other and that they would actively seek out things like privacy information from the services they use. The environment they are growing up in is different than that of previous generations, but the people are probably much the same. The problem is that education has not kept up with the environment they live in because of how quickly it changed. In the future, I'm sure we'll see classes like home economics and wood shop replaced with things like protecting your privacy online, and possibly legislation which limits the personal data that any site can collect or store from people under a certain age.
This is just basic data security.
Yes, it is. The question at hand is "can 15-year old girls be expected to have knowledge of basic data security?" How much data security knowledge did you have when you were 15? When I was 15, the beginning and end of data security for me was a really noisy tape backup drive (which, incidentally, I couldn't recover anything from now even if I wanted to).
Designers? Are you serious? Do you actually believe there was an architected plan for Facebook in any incarnation at any time in its life?
I think it's obvious that a lot of thought and usability testing went into the interface design for Facebook. As evidence, I submit the fact that there are 500 million people who are able to use Facebook, but are still unable to tell the difference between Facebook and this site, much less how to get to Facebook at all. The comments on that article show just how intelligent many Facebook users are when it comes to internet technology, but they are still able to use Facebook.
I'm not sure what happened to Ray, I haven't seen or heard from him for a while either. He's still updating his blog, so hopefully he's just busy doing the good work that has earned him so much respect.
If she grew up in the internet age, she has no excuse not to understand the technology.
That's completely ridiculous. You think that every kid that owns an iPhone understands things like HTTP, iOS, Bluetooth, and the 802.11 specs? Do they also understand database clusters, content delivery networks, event-based user interfaces and load balancing? Should all Facebook users be expected to understand how memcached works?
The point of a device like the iPhone, or a service like Facebook, is explicitly that you do not need to understand how the technology works in order to use it. This is the "black-box" approach to abstract programming that you learn about in year 1 of computer science classes. It's the same reason I can hit a button on a toaster and get toast without needing to know exactly how the coils heat up or the timer works.
I wouldn't say she "deserves" to lose her data, but she really should know better.
No, there is in fact no reason why she should know better. In fact, it's up to the designers of the technology to consider users like her and make their services easier to use and more suited to the needs of users that don't understand how it works. Apple understands this concept. You do not. You may be the guy who designs software and interfaces with the expectation that the kids using the service understand all of the terminology you're using and all of the ramifications involved. That's how you alienate your prospective user base. Facebook makes it easy to upload pictures, they should also make it easy to download them. It would be nice if you could download the original version, but that's asking a bit much for a social networking site instead of an image dump.
Pictures: Anyone who does not keep a local copy is an idiot and probably deserves to lose em!
Yeah submitter, that's right, your 15-year old daughter who grew up in the internet age is an idiot who deserves to lose her memories. Thankfully, we have people like Carrot007 to help point this out.
My uncle was one of the founders of the ad agency that came up with the slogan, so I'm getting a kick out of this.
So they were clearly and intentionally on the more shady end of ethical boundaries.
Yes, exactly! They were CLEARLY, and INTENTIONALLY, on the... uhh.. well, the "more shady" end of what we like to call "ethical boundaries". Clearly!
Well, it's neither I suppose. Call me crazy, but when I'm using a piece of software designed for creating internet content, for some reason I don't expect the thing to explode if it has a file open from a network share, and all of a sudden loses network connectivity. Now I might just be a strange guy, but I would expect that application to allow me to save the file, you know the file loaded in memory that it currently has open, which I can still use, to a local storage device. Flash doesn't allow that, if it loses its connection to the file it has open, you cannot save it at all, anywhere. This has been true for the last 10 years or so, at least. Macromedia's, and now Adobe's, answer to why this happens is that they "don't support using Flash in a network environment". Did I mention this is software for creating online content? Even my most basic text editor will let me save the current file anywhere I can reach, regardless of whether or not it still has access to the location the file was opened from.
Flash is notorious for crashing, ActionScript has a great feature called "silent failure", and everything bad I've seen happen with Flash happens to everyone in the office on a variety of operating systems, not just me. ActionScript 3 finally somewhat represents a respectable programming language, but then they go and screw up the UI so badly that it decides it needs to freeze for several seconds any time anything gets clicked on, which is another great feature of the software.
This is not true from any field or culture I am familiar with. Where do you derive this belief from?
This is generally true in human cultures, here on the planet Earth. For example, this is at the top of the page on the Wikipedia definition for "first":
First or Josh may refer to:
The ordinal form of the number one
You can also see on the page for one that the ordinal form of the number is, in fact, "first".
Just like "second" is the ordinal form of the number two, "first" is the ordinal form of the number one. Therefore, "the first version" is version 1, by definition. The ordinal form of the number zero is "zeroth" or "noughth", and I don't see a lot of fields or cultures using that form to describe the initial item in a series.
Anyway, I guess that's where I "derive the belief" that "one" and "first" indicate the same thing.
I understand, I'm a C-trained programmer as well, it just makes sense that "the first version" is version 1. This is human speech I'm talking about, not a memory offset.
I also might just have a small pet peeve about applications starting their versioning at anything other than 1, seeing as how the number 1 represents "the first".
Is it to state that there is something wrong in the development process of Inkscape?
Either the development process or the spec.
what would you suggest us to change
I don't know enough about the Inkscape development process to suggest the reasons why it has been in development for over a decade.
Compare and contrast with HTML authoring tools, the best of which (Dreamweaver) has also been in the works for 12 years, a good portion of which was financed by a corporation as large, wealthy and experienced as Adobe, and yet allows you to use only a tiny subset of the current HTML+CSS standards using its 'visual' tools.
Bah. I've been forced to work with Flash, my opinion of Adobe's developers has been decreasing for years and years. Maybe if they fix the bugs in Flash that have been there since version 5 I'll change my tune.
A complex/intricate design makes one tend to strip screws and leave ZIF sockets open? Sounds more like a lazy assembler to me.
So you're basically saying that SVG is a spec that is expected to take roughly 10 years to implement.
Chrome is up over 90%. Heck, according to this report, in 2008 BitFlash had only 5 partials and 3 fails:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.2/Tiny/ImpReport.html
I understand that BitFlash isn't writing SVG, but it's a text-based format, it can't be incredibly difficult to write the markup out.
I'm going to simultaneously gloat that my browser of choice has the highest rating, and also point out that IE9 has gone from 28% to 58% in 5 months, and Firefox went from 61% to 78% in 7 months. IE in general went from 0 to 58%, more than half of the spec, in 17 months and SVG isn't even the main purpose of the application.
I can sympathize with independent developers, but 8-12 years is quite a while to implement this.
the Father of Linux, Linux Torvalds
Ahh, good old Linux Torvalds. I wonder if he brought his son Android, Andy for short.
Seems like a really long time to implement SVG. Apparently Inkscape started in 2003 as a fork of another project which started in 1999 (which itself was based on yet another project). So they have been working on implementing SVG for 8 years, at a minimum? Assuming the forked project also had some support for SVG, we're looking at an SVG implementation that has been in the works for 12 years now.
In 1999, IE became the most-used web browser, IE5 was released and bundled with Win98 SE, the Mozilla Organization was enjoying its first birthday, Netscape 4.x was widely wreaking havoc, and somewhere, some developers got together to start implementing SVG...
In other words, this group of developers has been attempting to implement SVG since the W3C started developing it, and hasn't succeeded yet.
It sounds like the application is only halfway done, shouldn't they wait until the first version is finished before writing a book about it?
Although, since it's taken them 7 years to move from 0.37 to 0.48, maybe that would take a while.
Clearly Qadafi is going to do the full Tiananmen Square on his people
Tiananmen Square was Army firing on unarmed demonstrators. The situation in Libya is way past that already - Ghaddafi has been
You guys spelled "Khaddafi" wrong.
This is why you need to keep some nicely directional antennas with shielding from other directions, to reduce the effectiveness of their jamming
Right, a directional jammer, with a guy standing up there shooting it at everyone with a cell phone or TV.
And another thing - I don't know if you've heard, but the head of Haliburton is no longer running the government.
How do you know that this isn't Psy Ops to get us to attack oil-rich Libya?
Ah, Psy Ops, the new catch-all conspiracy theory.
We aren't attacking Libya, we're attacking Gaddafi. Gaddafi and Libya are at war, and the world has appeared to side with Libya.
There's also no reason why the US has to be the one to defend Libya from Gaddafi. There are plenty of other nations, including much of the Arab League, that aren't very fond of him.
And if we wanted Libya's oil, we would have made him a deal for it. There are already plenty of international oil companies operating there.