The software, documentation, interfaces, content, fonts and any data that came with your iPhone, as may be updated or replaced by feature enhancements, software updates or system restore software provided by Apple, whether in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc.
Clearly they can't actually own the physical phone, but they obviously own all the Apple software on it. The last sentence of the paragraph states that "Apple and its licensors retain ownership of the iPhone Software itself, and reserve all rights not expressly granted to you." Clearly, the only rights you have over your phone are the ones Apple says you can have.
a suite of Web-based, Internet-scale measurement tools that any user around the world could access for free
So, what happens if the Web-based suite is throttled or censored?
You'd think the tool wouldn't be throttled at all. Censored maybe, but why throttled? Better to promote the connection to any speed checking sites and give the user a false sense of fulfillment.
...there's really no reason for people to have one other than "I want it.
Sure there is. "It's convenient and I can afford it" works very well for most of us.
I'll give you points for the convenience, and I'm sure there really are people who can make good use of it. But I'm really referring to the majority of buyers. They have no need for an iPad, they just want it. Which might explain why they're willing to pay so much for it. When someone has a need for a tablet, they're not going to pay more for something with less features. If someone really wants one they'll pay anything, as is evident with many Apple products.
The reason why tablets are popular is not because of their features. It's because you can carry the damn things around with you without your arm falling off.
I'll agree that tablets are more popular than laptops because they're portable, but not because they're popular in general. Tablets (and let's be honest, we really mean iPads) are popular because Apple markets them to be. It's advertising, pure and simple, because there's really no reason for people to have one other than "I want it."
Certainly it's not feasible for small sites, but it really shouldn't be an issue for enormous, revenue generating websites, i.e. Facebook. Why they don't default to https boggles my mind. There must be a good explanation, but I haven't heard it.
And yes, I expect those operators at the plant will likely die before their time due to cancer or even worse
Spread FUD much? So far there have been no reports of workers getting sick from radioactive exposure. Sure they are getting some exposure but nothing that will cause a significant increase in cancer risk. If any one of those workers smokes then the smoking will likely be thousands of times more likely to be lethal than the "radeeayshun" will.
Do YOU spread FUD much? Really? Thousands of time more likely to be lethal than radiation? You should have just said nothing, because actual numbers of exposure are hard to come by. Smoking might increase your risk for cancer over a long time, but a short dose of high radiation could kill you or significantly increase your risk. I'm not saying the original post isn't FUD.
Just a check on wikipedia indicates smoking 1.5 packs per day only gives 15-30 mSv/yr. And the limit for Fukushima workers has been raised to 250 mSv/yr. And considering shorter doses can be lethal, due to the body's inability to repair damaged DNA quickly as opposed to over time, it should be concerning that some locations were receiving exposure of up to 10 mSv/hr.
My point is, you just pulled that statistic out of your ass.
Actually, not really. This type of time-travel (well, information being sent through time) requires that the past civilization have developed a receiver/method to detect the messages from the future.
If we developed the technology to send messages back in time using this method next week, we wouldn't be able to receive the messages until next week because right now we don't have anything set up to receive the messages.
So lets design a machine capable of receiving information now, and hope that it starts to get messages?
Am I the only one who gets absolutely frustrated that people are still proposing the possibility of time-travel?
This is why I can't party with my theoretical physicist friends anymore.
So stop partying with theoretical physicists who know all the possible scenarios where time-travel is possible, and start partying with engineers who know it's next to impossible to us to apply those scenarios.
Even if they did this (I'd say the burden of proof lies with you) What problem would you have with them gleaning second-hand information about you? At what point does responsibility move from Facebook to the person who submits, what is essentially public, information about you?
Actually, fuck it. Your example is too far fetched. I would love to see an example of this happening.
The economic differences between citizens in the US and citizens in Egypt are staggering. There's really no comparison. Plus, Egypt is full of younger people. The median age is 24 compared to ~37 in the US. We really don't have it as bad as the rest of the world. Then again, I've heard it said that "Everybody is only 3 missed meals away from a revolution."
Well, I'd say that since Mr. Zuckerberg has made a fortune using other people's work and disrespecting their privacy, turnabout is fair play.... If Facebook rules are good for everyone, then they should be good for everyone. Oh wait, the ordinary rules don't apply to the rich and famous, I forgot.
Now that's a completely different debate. Sneaky EULA wording and deceptive privacy rules aside, Facebook is still a free service that is in no way involuntary. The figurine is different in many ways. Facebook doesn't let you order custom prints of other peoples' photos or figurines for that matter. Considering the company didn't ask for permission sets it aside from Facebook's service entirely. Don't agree with Facebook's rules? Then don't use it. There's nothing to stop people from filing a class-action suit against them either, which I think has already happened.
You are attending a giant industry conference. Industries make products. Video game products contain plenty of art, but it's product art, which is to say, kitsch art.
No shit, Sherlock.
Is he even making a distinction between "big-budget" games like Call of Honor 7: Return to Glory and other gems like Bioshock? The fact that Ebert refuses to compare video games to novels indicates that he doesn't. It's hypocritical to the extreme. As a counter-point I could say that novels aren't art because of the money-makers like Twilight. Furthermore, video games have only been around for a few decades. How long as the novel been in existence? Has anyone actually sat down with Ebert and explained the differences to him? You don't need to match specific video games to specific works of art, that's detracting from the central argument that videogames can be art. Although, it seems when Ebert gets called out he just argues about the semantics.
One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.
It all makes sense now! All the sidestory plot elements didn't mean anything because I was playing a game!
If I didn't want someone making action figures of me, I would hope it's reasonable for me to ask them to stop. Did they even ask permission to use his image and Facebook's logo? At least make an offer of some of the profit. I hope they're not surprised.
It might be far fetched to convince people to stop using cell phones, but at least it's the right move. Instead of arguing that producers should make their code open to ensure that tracking isn't possible and all that hullabaloo, he's decided to take the easy road and just not use one. Are people glossing over this bit of information?
Not to mention consoles are more portable. I wouldn't want to lug my 40lb PC to the TV everytime I wanted to play a game on the big screen in conosle fashion. Hell, I don't even know of any PC games that have multiplayer where each person gets their own controller.
Not very soon, but I'm placing my bet on the assumption that once the children of the digital age (mostly Gen-Y and some younger Gen-Xers) become the majority, people will care less about... because there will be less to hide or be ashamed of, hopefully because at that point, a majority of people....
"They" said the same things about my parent's generation and smoking weed. By the time I become an adult they'll be selling it in vending machines right next to the Marlboros. Didn't quite turn out that way, did it?
Whoever said it would be in vending machines was out of their mind to think that. It's not come that far, but weed HAS come a long way. It's only been ~40 years since the counter-culture started and I'd say smoking weed has much less of a stigma now than it did then. I know plenty of people who have and/or still smoke it. This is pure speculation, but I'll bet that more Americans are okay with weed. The reason weed is only legal for medicine right now is because the legalization camp still has to cater to old people who vote my grandparents and the older baby-boomers. It's only going to get better.
Not very soon, but I'm placing my bet on the assumption that once the children of the digital age (mostly Gen-Y and some younger Gen-Xers) become the majority, people will care less about privacy because there will be less to hide or be ashamed of, hopefully because at that point, a majority of people will become used to freely sharing information about themselves. Hopefully it also means that I can start seeing ads that are interesting to me.
Slashdot Mirror
The software, documentation, interfaces, content, fonts and any data that came with your iPhone, as may be updated or replaced by feature enhancements, software updates or system restore software provided by Apple, whether in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc.
Clearly they can't actually own the physical phone, but they obviously own all the Apple software on it. The last sentence of the paragraph states that "Apple and its licensors retain ownership of the iPhone Software itself, and reserve all rights not expressly granted to you." Clearly, the only rights you have over your phone are the ones Apple says you can have.
According to the EULA it's theirs.
a suite of Web-based, Internet-scale measurement tools that any user around the world could access for free
So, what happens if the Web-based suite is throttled or censored?
You'd think the tool wouldn't be throttled at all. Censored maybe, but why throttled? Better to promote the connection to any speed checking sites and give the user a false sense of fulfillment.
...there's really no reason for people to have one other than "I want it.
Sure there is. "It's convenient and I can afford it" works very well for most of us.
I'll give you points for the convenience, and I'm sure there really are people who can make good use of it. But I'm really referring to the majority of buyers. They have no need for an iPad, they just want it. Which might explain why they're willing to pay so much for it. When someone has a need for a tablet, they're not going to pay more for something with less features. If someone really wants one they'll pay anything, as is evident with many Apple products.
The reason why tablets are popular is not because of their features. It's because you can carry the damn things around with you without your arm falling off.
I'll agree that tablets are more popular than laptops because they're portable, but not because they're popular in general. Tablets (and let's be honest, we really mean iPads) are popular because Apple markets them to be. It's advertising, pure and simple, because there's really no reason for people to have one other than "I want it."
I would if I had revenues of $800 million.
Certainly it's not feasible for small sites, but it really shouldn't be an issue for enormous, revenue generating websites, i.e. Facebook. Why they don't default to https boggles my mind. There must be a good explanation, but I haven't heard it.
Are you saying it's not innovating? Classical sheet music is very, very expensive.
...it's coming.
And yes, I expect those operators at the plant will likely die before their time due to cancer or even worse
Spread FUD much? So far there have been no reports of workers getting sick from radioactive exposure. Sure they are getting some exposure but nothing that will cause a significant increase in cancer risk. If any one of those workers smokes then the smoking will likely be thousands of times more likely to be lethal than the "radeeayshun" will.
Do YOU spread FUD much? Really? Thousands of time more likely to be lethal than radiation? You should have just said nothing, because actual numbers of exposure are hard to come by. Smoking might increase your risk for cancer over a long time, but a short dose of high radiation could kill you or significantly increase your risk. I'm not saying the original post isn't FUD.
Just a check on wikipedia indicates smoking 1.5 packs per day only gives 15-30 mSv/yr. And the limit for Fukushima workers has been raised to 250 mSv/yr. And considering shorter doses can be lethal, due to the body's inability to repair damaged DNA quickly as opposed to over time, it should be concerning that some locations were receiving exposure of up to 10 mSv/hr.
My point is, you just pulled that statistic out of your ass.
And the negative mods for this post.
Indeed, there's other methods that involve grouping neutron stars together and other crazy plans. See Tipler cylinders.
Actually, not really. This type of time-travel (well, information being sent through time) requires that the past civilization have developed a receiver/method to detect the messages from the future. If we developed the technology to send messages back in time using this method next week, we wouldn't be able to receive the messages until next week because right now we don't have anything set up to receive the messages.
So lets design a machine capable of receiving information now, and hope that it starts to get messages?
Am I the only one who gets absolutely frustrated that people are still proposing the possibility of time-travel?
This is why I can't party with my theoretical physicist friends anymore.
So stop partying with theoretical physicists who know all the possible scenarios where time-travel is possible, and start partying with engineers who know it's next to impossible to us to apply those scenarios.
Even if they did this (I'd say the burden of proof lies with you) What problem would you have with them gleaning second-hand information about you? At what point does responsibility move from Facebook to the person who submits, what is essentially public, information about you?
Actually, fuck it. Your example is too far fetched. I would love to see an example of this happening.
The economic differences between citizens in the US and citizens in Egypt are staggering. There's really no comparison. Plus, Egypt is full of younger people. The median age is 24 compared to ~37 in the US. We really don't have it as bad as the rest of the world. Then again, I've heard it said that "Everybody is only 3 missed meals away from a revolution."
Well, I'd say that since Mr. Zuckerberg has made a fortune using other people's work and disrespecting their privacy, turnabout is fair play.... If Facebook rules are good for everyone, then they should be good for everyone. Oh wait, the ordinary rules don't apply to the rich and famous, I forgot.
Now that's a completely different debate. Sneaky EULA wording and deceptive privacy rules aside, Facebook is still a free service that is in no way involuntary. The figurine is different in many ways. Facebook doesn't let you order custom prints of other peoples' photos or figurines for that matter. Considering the company didn't ask for permission sets it aside from Facebook's service entirely. Don't agree with Facebook's rules? Then don't use it. There's nothing to stop people from filing a class-action suit against them either, which I think has already happened.
You are attending a giant industry conference. Industries make products. Video game products contain plenty of art, but it's product art, which is to say, kitsch art.
No shit, Sherlock.
Is he even making a distinction between "big-budget" games like Call of Honor 7: Return to Glory and other gems like Bioshock? The fact that Ebert refuses to compare video games to novels indicates that he doesn't. It's hypocritical to the extreme. As a counter-point I could say that novels aren't art because of the money-makers like Twilight. Furthermore, video games have only been around for a few decades. How long as the novel been in existence? Has anyone actually sat down with Ebert and explained the differences to him? You don't need to match specific video games to specific works of art, that's detracting from the central argument that videogames can be art. Although, it seems when Ebert gets called out he just argues about the semantics.
One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.
It all makes sense now! All the sidestory plot elements didn't mean anything because I was playing a game!
If I didn't want someone making action figures of me, I would hope it's reasonable for me to ask them to stop. Did they even ask permission to use his image and Facebook's logo? At least make an offer of some of the profit. I hope they're not surprised.
It might be far fetched to convince people to stop using cell phones, but at least it's the right move. Instead of arguing that producers should make their code open to ensure that tracking isn't possible and all that hullabaloo, he's decided to take the easy road and just not use one. Are people glossing over this bit of information?
Not to mention consoles are more portable. I wouldn't want to lug my 40lb PC to the TV everytime I wanted to play a game on the big screen in conosle fashion. Hell, I don't even know of any PC games that have multiplayer where each person gets their own controller.
Oh calm down. To the layman the terms are of equal weight.
Maybe the dumbfuck to sends the mass emails in the first place should learn to BCC
Not very soon, but I'm placing my bet on the assumption that once the children of the digital age (mostly Gen-Y and some younger Gen-Xers) become the majority, people will care less about ... because there will be less to hide or be ashamed of, hopefully because at that point, a majority of people....
"They" said the same things about my parent's generation and smoking weed. By the time I become an adult they'll be selling it in vending machines right next to the Marlboros. Didn't quite turn out that way, did it?
Whoever said it would be in vending machines was out of their mind to think that. It's not come that far, but weed HAS come a long way. It's only been ~40 years since the counter-culture started and I'd say smoking weed has much less of a stigma now than it did then. I know plenty of people who have and/or still smoke it. This is pure speculation, but I'll bet that more Americans are okay with weed. The reason weed is only legal for medicine right now is because the legalization camp still has to cater to old people who vote my grandparents and the older baby-boomers. It's only going to get better.
Not very soon, but I'm placing my bet on the assumption that once the children of the digital age (mostly Gen-Y and some younger Gen-Xers) become the majority, people will care less about privacy because there will be less to hide or be ashamed of, hopefully because at that point, a majority of people will become used to freely sharing information about themselves. Hopefully it also means that I can start seeing ads that are interesting to me.