Thank god it was only 45. One of the bad things about digital photography is that it's easy to puke up 100's of worthless pictures and some folks just don't use good judgement about sharing. Every couple of months my sister sends me an email from Snapfish that says "Check out these 197 new photos of my granddaughter." Of the 197 maybe 3 are worth looking at.
It's likely that streaming video users don't care.
The loss in picture quality is similar to the loss of audio quality with the move from CDs to MP3s and to the loss of unmetered phone usage with the move from POTS to cellular phones.
New technologies don't have to be superior in every way to the technologies they supplant, just superior in the ways that people want.
MP3 listeners want the convenience of downloading small audio files more than they want high fidelity. Cellular phone users are willing to pay more for the convenience of cellular phone service. Streaming video users want convenience and are willing to give up video quality to get it.
Of course they did. Probably some junior intern in the Legal department did the search and reported his findings to his boss. That boss commissioned a legal secretary to find out what iCloud Communications is and draft a memo. Then he gave the memo to his boss. That boss sat in one or meetings with senior legal staff where one of the items on the agenda was iCloud Communications. Based on the memo, and perhaps a phone call or two to iCloud Communications, the senior legal staff figured that paying off (I mean, negotiating a settlement with) iCloud Communications would be cheaper than getting the rights up front and so decided to go ahead and start using the iCloud name.
After all, Steve wanted to use the iCloud name and it was their job to make it happen. Apple can, if necessary, throw a few hundred thousand at iCloud Communications. That's chicken feed in the whole iCloud thing.
Let me be clear: I'm not saying this is evil or anything like that. It's just how things work. Any settlement with iCloud Communications will be just a part (and a negligible part, at that) of the cost of doing iCloud business.
This is doomed to failure right out of the gate.
It's not blessed by Saint Jobs, so no true Apple fanboi will buy from it. If the fanbois won't use it, who will? Only heterosexual blue-collar Mac users with real jobs. AND THERE AREN'T ANY OF THOSE.
What do you propose they do instead? Never produce a new version of the O/S? Always ensure that new versions run at the same speed on older hardware? Give you a new iPad every time they release a new version?
The entire article is a ridiculous troll for hits from the newly-popular "anti-Google" crowd.
[A] person's city of birth and year of birth can be used to make a statistical guess about the first five digits of his/her social security number. Then, if you can somehow obtain those last four SSN digits explicitly -- voila, you've unlocked countless troves of personal information...
No, you don't have "troves of personal information." That's hyperbole. You've got a statistical guess about the demographics of the children who enter the contest. You simply can't go from a statistical guess+the last 4 digits of the SS number to personal information about a particular individual.
As a thought experiment though, suppose Google could. Suppose Google could look take "4321" and "Schenectady, NY" and come up with "little 5 year old Jimmy Smith at 1 Second Ave." What are they going to do with this information? Take out a mortgage in his name?
Finally, now Google has removed the requirement. Poof. The imaginary problem now has even less basis, so let's all stop crying "whaaaa...Google is teh evil" and move on to something important. Fer cryin' out loud, somewhere out there Apple is selling shiny toys to hipsters. THIS MUST BE STOPPED!
You can't break a rule if you don't totally understand it.
Uh, what? Frequently you break a rule because you don't understand it.
Just for example, suppose I tried to upgrade the electrical wiring in my house without understanding the electrical system building code. The building inspector won't approve my changes because I broke the rules about electrical wiring.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank god it was only 45. One of the bad things about digital photography is that it's easy to puke up 100's of worthless pictures and some folks just don't use good judgement about sharing. Every couple of months my sister sends me an email from Snapfish that says "Check out these 197 new photos of my granddaughter." Of the 197 maybe 3 are worth looking at.
The only question is, is this the worst thing that Steve Jobs has ever done, or just the worst thing lately?
It's likely that streaming video users don't care.
The loss in picture quality is similar to the loss of audio quality with the move from CDs to MP3s and to the loss of unmetered phone usage with the move from POTS to cellular phones.
New technologies don't have to be superior in every way to the technologies they supplant, just superior in the ways that people want.
MP3 listeners want the convenience of downloading small audio files more than they want high fidelity. Cellular phone users are willing to pay more for the convenience of cellular phone service. Streaming video users want convenience and are willing to give up video quality to get it.
/. commenters, lacking knowledge substitute cynicism, lacking experience substitute pessimism, lacking wit substitute sarcasm, and lacking passion substitute indignation.
Strawman much?
Try RapidWeaver http://www.realmacsoftware.com/rapidweaver/overview/. You'll probably want to use the Stacks http://yourhead.com/stacks/ plugin to get flexible page layouts and Collage http://yourhead.com/collage/ for photos.
I'm not connected to RealMac or YourHead, just a happy user.
Of course they did. Probably some junior intern in the Legal department did the search and reported his findings to his boss. That boss commissioned a legal secretary to find out what iCloud Communications is and draft a memo. Then he gave the memo to his boss. That boss sat in one or meetings with senior legal staff where one of the items on the agenda was iCloud Communications. Based on the memo, and perhaps a phone call or two to iCloud Communications, the senior legal staff figured that paying off (I mean, negotiating a settlement with) iCloud Communications would be cheaper than getting the rights up front and so decided to go ahead and start using the iCloud name.
After all, Steve wanted to use the iCloud name and it was their job to make it happen. Apple can, if necessary, throw a few hundred thousand at iCloud Communications. That's chicken feed in the whole iCloud thing.
Let me be clear: I'm not saying this is evil or anything like that. It's just how things work. Any settlement with iCloud Communications will be just a part (and a negligible part, at that) of the cost of doing iCloud business.
Speaking for the rest of the planet, we would all be happier that you did.
Haters to the left!
So give up, Jeff. It's money down a rat hole.
Texas doesn't have a lock on stupid legislators. Look what we've got over here in North Carolina: Legislator says the state needs its own currency http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/03/17/1059132/legislator-says-the-state-needs.html
"Companies" is the plural of "company." "Company's" is the possessive form.
As I explained above, divxio's statement is
Neither of the quotes you cite make such claims.
The statement "Mac OS X doesn't get PC viruses" a) doesn't make either of those claims and b) is absolutely true.
Intentionally misleading? Not to me and apparently not to you. So who would be misled by it?
I call bullshit. Show me where Apple is making such claims.
What do you propose they do instead? Never produce a new version of the O/S? Always ensure that new versions run at the same speed on older hardware? Give you a new iPad every time they release a new version?
The first rule is always free.
...meet little head.
From my soon-to-be-published book "Dick: An Owner's Manual"
Rule #1: Your dick will lie to you.
No, you don't have "troves of personal information." That's hyperbole. You've got a statistical guess about the demographics of the children who enter the contest. You simply can't go from a statistical guess+the last 4 digits of the SS number to personal information about a particular individual.
As a thought experiment though, suppose Google could. Suppose Google could look take "4321" and "Schenectady, NY" and come up with "little 5 year old Jimmy Smith at 1 Second Ave." What are they going to do with this information? Take out a mortgage in his name?
Finally, now Google has removed the requirement. Poof. The imaginary problem now has even less basis, so let's all stop crying "whaaaa...Google is teh evil" and move on to something important. Fer cryin' out loud, somewhere out there Apple is selling shiny toys to hipsters. THIS MUST BE STOPPED!
Uh, what? Frequently you break a rule because you don't understand it.
Just for example, suppose I tried to upgrade the electrical wiring in my house without understanding the electrical system building code. The building inspector won't approve my changes because I broke the rules about electrical wiring.
Four cameras? Fuck everything, we're doing five cameras. http://www.theonion.com/articles/fuck-everything-were-doing-five-blades,11056/
Came for Slave Girl Leia. Leaving disappointed.
It's not. It's just a way to give the anti-Apple /. crowd a chance to post some mindless reflexive insults.
"OMG! Steve Jobs is taking away our home button! I don't even have an iPhone or an iPad and I'm still indignant! Only gay Apple fanbois buy iCrap!"
Steve Jobs has not said anything about a home screen button. BGR has reported that "one of our Apple sources" said "some pretty wild information."
ASAR (Another Stupid Apple Rumor)