Refusing to provide storage and distribution is quite clearly [i]not[/i] the only thing that Apple do to try to limit this.
As I'm sure you well know, you cannot run non-Apple approved apps (unless you're trying to claim that web apps are an acceptable replacement for native iOS apps) without first jailbreaking your phone. Officially, this voids your licence agreement with Apple, and although to my knowledge they've never enforced this they regularly do as much as they can to the device to try to prevent jailbreaking.
You can argue that Apple are within their rights to do this, and potentially even that this may be good for the average consumer, but to simply claim that it doesn't happen - that Apple do nothing to prevent you from putting your own apps on an iPhone beyond refusing to distribute - is plain wrong.
You can make an OS as secure as you want, but assuming that it still allows the user to execute arbitrary applications, there will be always be plenty of people happy to click the "Yes please download and run this mysterious app as administrator" button.
At the moment, there's likely to be far less of those people running Linux, and even OS X, than there are running Windows. But if either of them became dominant, then you'd start to see plenty of malware hanging off the back of free downloadable screensavers etc.
I've ranted about something similar on a different thread, but I'll go off on one again.
Why isn't it useful? He's not vaguely saying "don't make mistakes". He's giving specific issues that he sees with the current process. He may not have an answer, but someone else who may not have even realised this was an issue may have an answer.
Ignoring problems because you personally don't have the solution is a poor way of getting the problem resolved.
Ah - that's a different matter, and I agree with that. Claiming that something is wrong simply because it hasn't been proved is just silly.
However, I do regularly come across the idea that you shouldn't tell someone they are wrong (even if you can show that they are wrong) unless you've got a better suggestion as to what is right, and that's pretty silly as well.
If you complain at string theory, then PLEASE state what you are proposing.
I never get this line of argument. Surely if you've got evidence that demonstrates a particular theory is clearly wrong, it's better to flag that up even if you've not got any specific alternative. If nothing else, it should encourage others to stop wasting their time pursuing something that's clearly wrong.
I'm not saying that string theory is wrong (I'm not a theoretical physicist, and I've got no particular views on this theory), but the principle of not being allowed to point out that something is wrong unless you know what the right answer is always annoys me.
If your claim isn't so frivolous that it's thrown out before it gets to court, and your state/country doesn't require the writ to be served in person, then yes.
Of course, even if it makes it to court and he doesn't show up, the judge still gets to define the level of damages to be awarded, so you'd better make up something bad. And if the farmer does open the letter and turn up to defend himself, you're likely to end up paying costs for the trial if you lose (and run the risk of being counter-sued by the farmer).
If you've got no evidence of any crime being committed against you (as in the case of claiming that you are owed money because someone's pirated Windows), then there's no suit to respond to. But, as I've said, even if that someone got missed, the money would be owed by your mate, not from anyone else. So why would your mate not respond to the summons?
Firstly, you attempting to sue for damages to MS for piracy of Windows would probably be thrown out well before it got to court, as you aren't the one being damaged.
Secondly, even if you sued for something you did have entitlement to (e.g. damages from libel), the payment would come from your friend, as he's the one being sued. So he'd have a pretty strong motivation to turn up in court to defend himself.
Do you class things like selectively publishing only the studies that support your claims and brushing the rest under the carpet as simply not "dotting the i's and crossing the t's"? Do you have links to any of his legitimate critics? I'd be interested to see what they are complaining about.
As it stands now, there's probably as many "valid" ways of showing that fish oil has benefits as there are to show ways that fish oil doesn't
Most "effective" treatments don't suffer from this issue. If you do enough properly run trials on something that has an effect, the number of trials supporting the claim will start to outweigh the ones that don't. There's not a great deal of legitimate studies showing that aspirin isn't effective for example.
It is not possible to continue to use the Playstation Network if you don't continually install the firmware upgrades. While they're saying that nobody is forcing consumers to upgrade to firmwares that drop the other OS support they're essentially locking people out of the online section if they don't. It's dirty and it should be illegal.
For me, this is the critical issue.
If it was simply the case that he'd entirely voluntarily decided to update his firmware and not noticed the bit that said it was going to disable Linux, then to some extent that's his own fault.
But it's not entirely voluntary. He had a console that used to be able to both run Linux and connect to PSN. Sony presented him with a choice of either removing Linux or removing PSN access. Don't know whether I missed it, but the article seemed to skip over this point.
you seem to be implying willow bark is the only herb with a better than minor effect
I could be wrong, but I think you're reading something into his statement that's not there. I didn't see anything that suggested it was the only effective herb - it was just a single example.
Another example is fish oil, like marijuana there are many physicians recommending fish oil over FDA approved supplements.
You might want to look at what Ben Goldacre has to say about fish oils, and the poor science behind much of their promotion, on http://www.badscience.net/.
The way I usually describe it is numerals. I can show the number 327 to anyone in the Western world and they would instantly know what the number is even though an English speaker and a French speaker would say something totally different.
Don't get me wrong - I think written Chinese is beautiful (spoken a little less so, at least to my ears), and I really enjoyed writing it when I was learning. It would be a huge loss if they did decide to drop it, but I do wish that it wasn't so hard to learn.
English I can understand to a certain extent. It is certainly an oddity, and there's a lot of inconsistencies. But once you've learned the basics (all 26 letters, the hard and soft K, the th and sh sounds etc) with most words there's probably at most 2 or 3 realistic ways that you could pronounce them.
French seems pretty simple to me - I can just about get by in the language, but I'm far from fluent, and I confident that I could pick up pretty much any French book and read it out loud in a way that a Frenchman could understand, even if I didn't understand half the words on the page. You've got to learn how a particular letter, or combination, sounds in the language, but once you're there then it's all quite straightforward.
With Chinese, without knowing that this specific shape is this word, and this word sound like this (out of a choice of many thousands), I wouldn't know where to start. I can remember how to say about 30 or so words, but apart from the first few numbers (which are pretty obvious) I couldn't even make a wild stab at writing any of them.
The biggest challenge I found when learning (very) basic Mandarin was the almost complete disconnection between the sound of a word and how its written.
With a European language or something like Arabic, once you've learned the alphabet then when you learn the sound of a new word, it's usually pretty obvious how it's going to be written (bar the odd bit of perculiar spelling that you sometimes come across), or vice versa - when you're reading a new word in a phonetic language you immediately have a good idea what it's going to sound like even if you don't yet know what it means.
With Mandarin it felt almost like I was learning two separate languages at the same time, spoken Mandarin and written Mandarin.
Slashdot Mirror
How, exactly? Say I've developed an app and I want to distribute it to everyone in my company. How would I go about doing it?
Refusing to provide storage and distribution is quite clearly [i]not[/i] the only thing that Apple do to try to limit this. As I'm sure you well know, you cannot run non-Apple approved apps (unless you're trying to claim that web apps are an acceptable replacement for native iOS apps) without first jailbreaking your phone. Officially, this voids your licence agreement with Apple, and although to my knowledge they've never enforced this they regularly do as much as they can to the device to try to prevent jailbreaking. You can argue that Apple are within their rights to do this, and potentially even that this may be good for the average consumer, but to simply claim that it doesn't happen - that Apple do nothing to prevent you from putting your own apps on an iPhone beyond refusing to distribute - is plain wrong.
You can make an OS as secure as you want, but assuming that it still allows the user to execute arbitrary applications, there will be always be plenty of people happy to click the "Yes please download and run this mysterious app as administrator" button. At the moment, there's likely to be far less of those people running Linux, and even OS X, than there are running Windows. But if either of them became dominant, then you'd start to see plenty of malware hanging off the back of free downloadable screensavers etc.
I thought the trick was to simply smear them with alegations about sexual crimes these days.
Why? For most things, it's a far better input method than anything else out there.
Hmmm.
Presumably a sheet of black paper also has a contrast ratio of infinity (0/0).
You do realise that "film" has multiple meanings? One of which is "motion piction".
I've ranted about something similar on a different thread, but I'll go off on one again.
Why isn't it useful? He's not vaguely saying "don't make mistakes". He's giving specific issues that he sees with the current process. He may not have an answer, but someone else who may not have even realised this was an issue may have an answer.
Ignoring problems because you personally don't have the solution is a poor way of getting the problem resolved.
And on VHS you couldn't skip over those annoying anti-piracy adverts like you can on DVD. Oh wait...
That's OK then. Sorry for jumping down your throat - my interpretation of your original comment just hit a particular nerve for me.
Ah - that's a different matter, and I agree with that. Claiming that something is wrong simply because it hasn't been proved is just silly.
However, I do regularly come across the idea that you shouldn't tell someone they are wrong (even if you can show that they are wrong) unless you've got a better suggestion as to what is right, and that's pretty silly as well.
Avatar was 10 times better? Hurt Locker must have been truly awful then.
I never get this line of argument. Surely if you've got evidence that demonstrates a particular theory is clearly wrong, it's better to flag that up even if you've not got any specific alternative. If nothing else, it should encourage others to stop wasting their time pursuing something that's clearly wrong.
I'm not saying that string theory is wrong (I'm not a theoretical physicist, and I've got no particular views on this theory), but the principle of not being allowed to point out that something is wrong unless you know what the right answer is always annoys me.
If your claim isn't so frivolous that it's thrown out before it gets to court, and your state/country doesn't require the writ to be served in person, then yes.
Of course, even if it makes it to court and he doesn't show up, the judge still gets to define the level of damages to be awarded, so you'd better make up something bad. And if the farmer does open the letter and turn up to defend himself, you're likely to end up paying costs for the trial if you lose (and run the risk of being counter-sued by the farmer).
You can get tilt and shift lenses for DSLRs.
If you've got no evidence of any crime being committed against you (as in the case of claiming that you are owed money because someone's pirated Windows), then there's no suit to respond to. But, as I've said, even if that someone got missed, the money would be owed by your mate, not from anyone else. So why would your mate not respond to the summons?
Firstly, you attempting to sue for damages to MS for piracy of Windows would probably be thrown out well before it got to court, as you aren't the one being damaged.
Secondly, even if you sued for something you did have entitlement to (e.g. damages from libel), the payment would come from your friend, as he's the one being sued. So he'd have a pretty strong motivation to turn up in court to defend himself.
Do you class things like selectively publishing only the studies that support your claims and brushing the rest under the carpet as simply not "dotting the i's and crossing the t's"? Do you have links to any of his legitimate critics? I'd be interested to see what they are complaining about.
Most "effective" treatments don't suffer from this issue. If you do enough properly run trials on something that has an effect, the number of trials supporting the claim will start to outweigh the ones that don't. There's not a great deal of legitimate studies showing that aspirin isn't effective for example.
For me, this is the critical issue.
If it was simply the case that he'd entirely voluntarily decided to update his firmware and not noticed the bit that said it was going to disable Linux, then to some extent that's his own fault.
But it's not entirely voluntary. He had a console that used to be able to both run Linux and connect to PSN. Sony presented him with a choice of either removing Linux or removing PSN access. Don't know whether I missed it, but the article seemed to skip over this point.
I could be wrong, but I think you're reading something into his statement that's not there. I didn't see anything that suggested it was the only effective herb - it was just a single example.
You might want to look at what Ben Goldacre has to say about fish oils, and the poor science behind much of their promotion, on http://www.badscience.net/.
It's not that difficult to continue to store the data locally and only back it up to the cloud when a connection's available.
The way I usually describe it is numerals. I can show the number 327 to anyone in the Western world and they would instantly know what the number is even though an English speaker and a French speaker would say something totally different.
Don't get me wrong - I think written Chinese is beautiful (spoken a little less so, at least to my ears), and I really enjoyed writing it when I was learning. It would be a huge loss if they did decide to drop it, but I do wish that it wasn't so hard to learn.
English I can understand to a certain extent. It is certainly an oddity, and there's a lot of inconsistencies. But once you've learned the basics (all 26 letters, the hard and soft K, the th and sh sounds etc) with most words there's probably at most 2 or 3 realistic ways that you could pronounce them.
French seems pretty simple to me - I can just about get by in the language, but I'm far from fluent, and I confident that I could pick up pretty much any French book and read it out loud in a way that a Frenchman could understand, even if I didn't understand half the words on the page. You've got to learn how a particular letter, or combination, sounds in the language, but once you're there then it's all quite straightforward.
With Chinese, without knowing that this specific shape is this word, and this word sound like this (out of a choice of many thousands), I wouldn't know where to start. I can remember how to say about 30 or so words, but apart from the first few numbers (which are pretty obvious) I couldn't even make a wild stab at writing any of them.
The biggest challenge I found when learning (very) basic Mandarin was the almost complete disconnection between the sound of a word and how its written.
With a European language or something like Arabic, once you've learned the alphabet then when you learn the sound of a new word, it's usually pretty obvious how it's going to be written (bar the odd bit of perculiar spelling that you sometimes come across), or vice versa - when you're reading a new word in a phonetic language you immediately have a good idea what it's going to sound like even if you don't yet know what it means.
With Mandarin it felt almost like I was learning two separate languages at the same time, spoken Mandarin and written Mandarin.