Because I think the fact that "it happens" is irrelevant. I think it is a bad thing. You argued that "it happens" as support for it continuing, and I pointed out that "it happens" isn't a justification.
No, no i didn't. I asked you why you opposed it, you responded that it was because it was mandated by government, i countered that this is not valid because something is not necessarily bad just because it is mandated by government.
Obviously to you, because you think that "it happens" is justification for it continuing.
No i think that just because something is mandated by the government isn't a valid reason to oppose it.
Obviously you did miss the word "mandate", because you replied to my coment about mandating something by asking what was wrong with it happening.
As in 'what's wrong with them mandating it'.
There is a difference between allowing them to do it and mandating it, and no, "having" is not the same as "mandated".
I already clarified that and i even re-posted the comment with the word substituted, are you really that dense that you can't get past it?
I have no problem with the former, but the latter is not acceptable, for the reasons you obviously don't agree with.
How you can you know that when you still fail to specify those reasons.
The fact that you are asking me the same question that I already answered means you obviously didn't read the answer I already provided.
Are you suggesting this goes back to 'because it's an unfunded mandate by the government'? Because that is not a valid reason, moreover how can you say that an online course is more expensive than traditional teaching methods when such figures are not provided? Perhaps this is even cheaper.
What other interpretation would you apply to the phrase "just the internet" when referring to high school students? If there are teachers involved, then it isn't "just the internet".
And teachers should be involved, no-one in this discussion thread or in TFS or in TFA used the phrase 'just the internet' or made any such suggestions, i think you're having a bit of difficulty keeping track of the context of your discussions. If you're having a discussion with someone else in regard to using 'just the internet' then your comment is relevant and i would agree with you, but it's certainly not relevant in this discussion, and i certainly never suggested such a thing.
I'd venture to say that this is not entirely true for many subjects that students learn in K-12. For example, geometry, arithmetic, algebra, even basic calculus haven't changed significantly in hundreds of years.
Isn't it odd then that there are constantly new revisions of textbooks? These are 'updated' versions, you don't use the same textbook from hundreds of years ago because explanations and teaching methodologies are updated and errors fixed.
Why would you need instantly up to date information to learn these subjects? The same is true for english, history, etc., etc.
You don't think mankind discovers more about history as time goes on? Uncovering more details? Making archaeological discoveries?
"It happens" and "it's a good thing" are two different concepts.
Then why did you list a justification for your opposition as simply that it is an unfunded mandate? Obviously that isn't justification for opposition at all. Not to mention that 'it happens' and 'it's a good thing' are clearly not mutually exclusive.
And not expecting the government at the state level to fund something that they demand the local schools do is one of the "it happens" things, not one of the "it's a good things".
Why? They aren't mutually exclusive.
Nothing is wrong with allowing them to take approved online courses. Did you miss the word "mandate"?
Are you hard of reading? The statement stands for itself, I didn't write 'allowing' and i didn't miss the word 'mandate'. If you really are having that much difficulty then replace 'having' in the original statement with 'mandating': What's wrong with mandating high school students take classes in a form that is becoming ever more common in post-high school life?
You've just pushed the problem down one level on the stack. How do you teach students to identify reputable sources if you just throw them at the internet and let them figure it out for themselves?
No-one is suggesting you just throw them at the internet and let them figure it out for themselves, you're just trying to create FUD with rubbish comments like that.
No, they won't always be correct, and only a fool would think they would be -- or that I made any claim similar to that. At least there is a vetting process that takes place and someone is responsible, whether it is the local school board or superintendent or principle, or the state organization that vets textbooks. It's not just "hope" and "maybe" the students won't wander into a site with ridiculous "facts" that they have no way of vetting themselves.
And no-one is suggesting that you would eliminate teachers or textbooks (since they would be in digital form) and rely solely on kids just using the internet, so your point is completely irrelevant anyway.
No. There is an amazing ability to find information online, but learning requires evaluation and incorporation of correct information.
So you evaluate and take your information from a reputable source, you know, like you do in all aspects of life. You don't just trust what anyone tells you and that includes teachers, because they aren't always going to be correct.
Throwing money on expensive gadgets that do nothing to improve the educational process is a complete waste of money
Making it far easier to access up-to-date information is great for the education process. You'll never replace teachers but technology like this is clearly advantageous. What is it specifically you're opposed to?
No. The movie / music buying / renting business is not profitable for them but they don't care because all that matters for them is to use their monopolistic position in the search business to destroy all competition in the other businesses (phones, tablets, etc...) so you're not really their customer. You're their product.
I suppose you can't actually show that the movie and music buying/renting business is unprofitable can you? We already know that you're their product, but it's idiots like you that regurgitate that rhetoric without actually knowing what it means and realizing that it's only relevant in particular contexts, for example in this situation you are - by definition - both their productand their customer.
factory installed in car dvd systems are usually tied up within the central car ecu because they share the same key code tied to the physical car key, as to avoid people casually smashing a 400$ windows to steal a 100$ dvd player.
No, they aren't tied to the ECU.
you won't have that issue if you put an aftermarket dvd/autoradio/navsat, but if you want an aftermarket official car entartainment system you will also have to remap your ecu.
No, you won't. In my partner's 2011 mitsubishi the in-car DVD system has nothing to do with the ECU whatsoever, and i know this because i did flash it to get access to the internal HDD.
No you aren't. You are the product, sold by Netflix/Hulu/Google to the Media Companies who will take your money and use it to demand more bad laws like SOPA.
You don't cease to be a customer just because they also sell targeted advertising, it's not that hard to understand.
You are not google's customer.. You are google's product.
If you are renting movies or buying apps from them then you are their customer, just like if you're a Netflix or Hulu subscriber you are their customer.
Replacing the firmware in a phone isn't going to make an antenna melt or crack the screen. If a hardware component fails that can't be due to a programming error, they shouldn't be able to get out of it by saying "the phone was unlocked".
Cracked screens aren't usually covered under warranty, but firmware can damage components by forcing frequencies that are not supported by those components, overcharging batteries, etc... Mind you Apple said they wouldn't cover jailbroken devices under warranty but in many cases they still did. So there's probably a good chance that if it's something highly unlikely to have been damaged by firmware they'll still likely cover it, but if you've bricked it you're probably SOL.
what if you flash the in car DVD system to region free they have to prove that broke the car.
If you then have a non-functioning in-car DVD system then that wouldn't be covered under warranty, if you then have a cracked head then clearly that has nothing to do with flashing the in-car DVD system so that would be covered under warranty.
Under that they have to prove that the 3rd party software broke the phone. Just in a car they can't just you put in a 3rd party radio in and say the engine warranty is void.
The radio doesn't control the engine though, so obviously replacing the radio isn't going to void the engine warranty.
Google video rental will also be unavailable because the device will be no longer protected by security mechanism
Why do they insist on this kind of language? Why can't they just say that, since the content providers don't trust you, they won't do business with you because they can't assert any control over your device? I know it sounds Stallman-ish but it's not about protecting the device at all, that's an outright lie. And it's not about protecting you either, it's about protecting content providers from you because they don't trust you. They really need to change their attitude towards their customers (not consumers, customers).
Hard when one of those infringing features is a touch screen.
What are you talking about? Read the patent, nothing about touchscreens other than that the device on which this would be implemented preferably contains a touchscreen. No patent claims to touchscreens.
1) The application list is displayed alongside the call controls so that you have immediate access to call functions while browsing applications.
Where was that in the patent? I saw icon replacement and switching but not displaying an application list alongside call controls:
displaying on the touch screen display a first user interface for a phone application during a phone call; detecting activation of a menu icon or menu button during the phone call, in response to detecting activation of the menu icon or menu button, replacing the first user interface for the phone application with a menu of application icons
2) Applications become call-aware and offer a button to change back to the "phone application" somewhere in the interface.
I couldn't see that in the patent application, it specifies that there would be a button to change back to the phone application but not that applications would be aware of or include it.
It does say: modifying the corresponding application user interface to include a switch application icon
Which could presumably include it listed as a 'toast' notification icon at the top like windows phone does.
It's not a subjective opinion. While I could probably use it too, I still don't go out to buy screwdriver when I want to hit nails to a wall.
Of course you don't, a screwdriver is not made for hitting nails into a wall and would not be advertised as such. So your example clearly is not analogous to the situation with the PS3, which was advertised as a machine that 'only does everything'. Avoiding being obtuse and taking things literally you can see that while you're not going to use this to hit nails into a wall this does include media center functionality and streaming apps like Netflix. Consoles evolved beyond being purely gaming machines years ago, get with the times.
Slashdot Mirror
Because I think the fact that "it happens" is irrelevant. I think it is a bad thing. You argued that "it happens" as support for it continuing, and I pointed out that "it happens" isn't a justification.
No, no i didn't. I asked you why you opposed it, you responded that it was because it was mandated by government, i countered that this is not valid because something is not necessarily bad just because it is mandated by government.
Obviously to you, because you think that "it happens" is justification for it continuing.
No i think that just because something is mandated by the government isn't a valid reason to oppose it.
Obviously you did miss the word "mandate", because you replied to my coment about mandating something by asking what was wrong with it happening.
As in 'what's wrong with them mandating it'.
There is a difference between allowing them to do it and mandating it, and no, "having" is not the same as "mandated".
I already clarified that and i even re-posted the comment with the word substituted, are you really that dense that you can't get past it?
I have no problem with the former, but the latter is not acceptable, for the reasons you obviously don't agree with.
How you can you know that when you still fail to specify those reasons.
The fact that you are asking me the same question that I already answered means you obviously didn't read the answer I already provided.
Are you suggesting this goes back to 'because it's an unfunded mandate by the government'? Because that is not a valid reason, moreover how can you say that an online course is more expensive than traditional teaching methods when such figures are not provided? Perhaps this is even cheaper.
What other interpretation would you apply to the phrase "just the internet" when referring to high school students? If there are teachers involved, then it isn't "just the internet".
And teachers should be involved, no-one in this discussion thread or in TFS or in TFA used the phrase 'just the internet' or made any such suggestions, i think you're having a bit of difficulty keeping track of the context of your discussions. If you're having a discussion with someone else in regard to using 'just the internet' then your comment is relevant and i would agree with you, but it's certainly not relevant in this discussion, and i certainly never suggested such a thing.
I'd venture to say that this is not entirely true for many subjects that students learn in K-12. For example, geometry, arithmetic, algebra, even basic calculus haven't changed significantly in hundreds of years.
Isn't it odd then that there are constantly new revisions of textbooks? These are 'updated' versions, you don't use the same textbook from hundreds of years ago because explanations and teaching methodologies are updated and errors fixed.
Why would you need instantly up to date information to learn these subjects? The same is true for english, history, etc., etc.
You don't think mankind discovers more about history as time goes on? Uncovering more details? Making archaeological discoveries?
"It happens" and "it's a good thing" are two different concepts.
Then why did you list a justification for your opposition as simply that it is an unfunded mandate? Obviously that isn't justification for opposition at all. Not to mention that 'it happens' and 'it's a good thing' are clearly not mutually exclusive.
And not expecting the government at the state level to fund something that they demand the local schools do is one of the "it happens" things, not one of the "it's a good things".
Why? They aren't mutually exclusive.
Nothing is wrong with allowing them to take approved online courses. Did you miss the word "mandate"?
Are you hard of reading? The statement stands for itself, I didn't write 'allowing' and i didn't miss the word 'mandate'. If you really are having that much difficulty then replace 'having' in the original statement with 'mandating':
What's wrong with mandating high school students take classes in a form that is becoming ever more common in post-high school life?
You've just pushed the problem down one level on the stack. How do you teach students to identify reputable sources if you just throw them at the internet and let them figure it out for themselves?
No-one is suggesting you just throw them at the internet and let them figure it out for themselves, you're just trying to create FUD with rubbish comments like that.
No, they won't always be correct, and only a fool would think they would be -- or that I made any claim similar to that. At least there is a vetting process that takes place and someone is responsible, whether it is the local school board or superintendent or principle, or the state organization that vets textbooks. It's not just "hope" and "maybe" the students won't wander into a site with ridiculous "facts" that they have no way of vetting themselves.
And no-one is suggesting that you would eliminate teachers or textbooks (since they would be in digital form) and rely solely on kids just using the internet, so your point is completely irrelevant anyway.
1. Unfunded mandates from higher levels of government.
Unfunded mandates from higher levels of government occur in almost all aspects of life, the government isn't expected to fund every mandate they make.
2. Mandated online classes as a high school graduation requirement.
What's wrong with having high school students take classes in a form that is becoming ever more common in post-high school life?
No. There is an amazing ability to find information online, but learning requires evaluation and incorporation of correct information.
So you evaluate and take your information from a reputable source, you know, like you do in all aspects of life. You don't just trust what anyone tells you and that includes teachers, because they aren't always going to be correct.
Throwing money on expensive gadgets that do nothing to improve the educational process is a complete waste of money
Making it far easier to access up-to-date information is great for the education process. You'll never replace teachers but technology like this is clearly advantageous. What is it specifically you're opposed to?
Recall that TouchWiz is the reason the Galaxy S and Galaxy Tab won't get Ice Cream Sandwich despite being only months old..
Specifically the 7" Galaxy Tab, only 15 months old and the Galaxy S, only 20 months old. In the tech world that's ancient.
No. The movie / music buying / renting business is not profitable for them but they don't care because all that matters for them is to use their monopolistic position in the search business to destroy all competition in the other businesses (phones, tablets, etc...) so you're not really their customer. You're their product.
I suppose you can't actually show that the movie and music buying/renting business is unprofitable can you? We already know that you're their product, but it's idiots like you that regurgitate that rhetoric without actually knowing what it means and realizing that it's only relevant in particular contexts, for example in this situation you are - by definition - both their product and their customer.
factory installed in car dvd systems are usually tied up within the central car ecu because they share the same key code tied to the physical car key, as to avoid people casually smashing a 400$ windows to steal a 100$ dvd player.
No, they aren't tied to the ECU.
you won't have that issue if you put an aftermarket dvd/autoradio/navsat, but if you want an aftermarket official car entartainment system you will also have to remap your ecu.
No, you won't. In my partner's 2011 mitsubishi the in-car DVD system has nothing to do with the ECU whatsoever, and i know this because i did flash it to get access to the internal HDD.
You aren't the customer, either. You are in fact the consumer.
You're the customer, you're buying a product or service from them so by definition you are the customer.
Google's advertisers are their customers and you and your data are what's for sale to them.
Google's advertisers are also their customers.
No you aren't. You are the product, sold by Netflix/Hulu/Google to the Media Companies who will take your money and use it to demand more bad laws like SOPA.
You don't cease to be a customer just because they also sell targeted advertising, it's not that hard to understand.
You are not google's customer.. You are google's product.
If you are renting movies or buying apps from them then you are their customer, just like if you're a Netflix or Hulu subscriber you are their customer.
Replacing the firmware in a phone isn't going to make an antenna melt or crack the screen. If a hardware component fails that can't be due to a programming error, they shouldn't be able to get out of it by saying "the phone was unlocked".
Cracked screens aren't usually covered under warranty, but firmware can damage components by forcing frequencies that are not supported by those components, overcharging batteries, etc... Mind you Apple said they wouldn't cover jailbroken devices under warranty but in many cases they still did. So there's probably a good chance that if it's something highly unlikely to have been damaged by firmware they'll still likely cover it, but if you've bricked it you're probably SOL.
When did Google begin renting movies ?
A while ago.
what if you flash the in car DVD system to region free they have to prove that broke the car.
If you then have a non-functioning in-car DVD system then that wouldn't be covered under warranty, if you then have a cracked head then clearly that has nothing to do with flashing the in-car DVD system so that would be covered under warranty.
I'm not saying your point is false, I'm pointing out that your analogy is false.
Under that they have to prove that the 3rd party software broke the phone. Just in a car they can't just you put in a 3rd party radio in and say the engine warranty is void.
The radio doesn't control the engine though, so obviously replacing the radio isn't going to void the engine warranty.
Google video rental will also be unavailable because the device will be no longer protected by security mechanism
Why do they insist on this kind of language? Why can't they just say that, since the content providers don't trust you, they won't do business with you because they can't assert any control over your device? I know it sounds Stallman-ish but it's not about protecting the device at all, that's an outright lie. And it's not about protecting you either, it's about protecting content providers from you because they don't trust you. They really need to change their attitude towards their customers (not consumers, customers).
Hard when one of those infringing features is a touch screen.
What are you talking about? Read the patent, nothing about touchscreens other than that the device on which this would be implemented preferably contains a touchscreen. No patent claims to touchscreens.
Yes most patents do seem to be terribly obfuscated, it's no wonder the USPTO appears to approve so many frivolous and obvious patents.
So, as long as the task switcher doesn't use app icons, it's good?
Based on what i've read of the patent i'd say yes.
1) The application list is displayed alongside the call controls so that you have immediate access to call functions while browsing applications.
Where was that in the patent? I saw icon replacement and switching but not displaying an application list alongside call controls:
displaying on the touch screen display a first user interface for a phone application during a phone call; detecting activation of a menu icon or menu button during the phone call, in response to detecting activation of the menu icon or menu button, replacing the first user interface for the phone application with a menu of application icons
2) Applications become call-aware and offer a button to change back to the "phone application" somewhere in the interface.
I couldn't see that in the patent application, it specifies that there would be a button to change back to the phone application but not that applications would be aware of or include it.
It does say:
modifying the corresponding application user interface to include a switch application icon
Which could presumably include it listed as a 'toast' notification icon at the top like windows phone does.
It's not a subjective opinion. While I could probably use it too, I still don't go out to buy screwdriver when I want to hit nails to a wall.
Of course you don't, a screwdriver is not made for hitting nails into a wall and would not be advertised as such. So your example clearly is not analogous to the situation with the PS3, which was advertised as a machine that 'only does everything'. Avoiding being obtuse and taking things literally you can see that while you're not going to use this to hit nails into a wall this does include media center functionality and streaming apps like Netflix. Consoles evolved beyond being purely gaming machines years ago, get with the times.