Oh, you're one of those-- too meek to walk into an Apple Store and demand service. I didn't think such weakminded individuals bought non-Apple, but hey.
Geekboys like you might put up with Android's engineer-inspired interface. People who actually need something usable, well, need something that usability testing has gone into.
Meh. I've had many a tablet device since my trusty Newton, and currently have both iDevices and Android & etc. I don't think my shiny iThiny is the be all end all; but it's certainly pretty good.
Since my iDevices are jailbroken, I'm not seeing much in feature differences. What I do see, is usability. Android is a pain. Android is not universal across devices; some things work, some don't. It's a repeat of MS/PC/Windows anarchy.
The point here: Apple made tablet devices work for the masses. All the rest seem to be posers.
"Now that most phones do the same things and work pretty much the same way, the most obvious (and, arguably, important) difference between them is the screen."
This is hogwash. No tablet comes close to the experience of the iPad; no phone comes close to the effectiveness of the iPhone line. No question-- I'm no fanboy, I think Steve Jobs was a jerk, but Apple simply has done things better.
All of this info is fairly easily found on the web. Sure, a lot of Drupal documentation is spread here and there in forums, but this is a basic feature of Drupal and there are handbook pages.
Regardless, I used to find myself answering basic multisite questions on IRC every few days (usually from people who barely understood Apache), so maybe there's some point to this. At least, I'll be able to refer people to a book:P
Otherwise, as someonbe else has said, I'm not sure what the point of such a book is. Or perhaps I need to write a book on basic mouse manipulation: lowest common denominator == best market ?
Well, I'm assuming that his account is accurate. If he re-installed, etc, then there are many other potential legal problems (for instance, trespass-- I talked tp a much better legal scholar than myself about this, a few hours ago, who was willing to consider this as trespass or similar offense).
I took the position that this guy violated privacy and should be prosecuted, and the legal scholar shrugged his shoulders and said the venue was public and people had no expectation of privacy there-- especially if it was "art." S/he then argued that if an artist used a telephoto lens to look in my window, but then used the images for "art" or "public commentary," it was protected in the US.
I don't think we want that, and I don't think that's "right." If we accept the foregoing, I imagine, an "artist" will soon be able to take naked pics with a small 'bot in a dressing room, and then publish them as "art" with protection under US "free speech."
Unfortunately in the US, the legal context doesn't provide many tools for making distinctions or walling off a realm that's not open to inspection (and publication) if the stated interest is not commercial (ie, "art" or "academic"). Yet I suspect the US's Constitutional framers, somehow, did not intend that pillow talk could be recorded by any third party and repeated as a matter of "free speech and expression."
Alas, too little will to explore and define these matters in the US (as with so much else). Looking forward to my next stay back in Belgium or CZ.
You're right that just because it's *technically possible* it's not necessarily legal (much less right). But the whole point here, is that it's not clear why it would be wrong. The US does not have the kind of privacy expectation that has arisen in E.U. nations. Why is there a problem?
Otherwise, as currently info reads, Apple should have put up a EULA or such preventing this. But that doesn't really get to the core of the issue, does it?
Except, well, they were machines made publically available, with software install rights. If they didn't want stuff installed, they should do like my public library, and reboot into a new session for everyone... *seriously,* it's not hard.
I don't have the right? Holy lack of disciplined, analytic thought on SlashDot, BatBuddy!
Please cite one piece of relevant statute or case law. Because Apple seems to be encouraging users to install software on those machines, and no charges were filed. Certainly looks like he had the "right" to me.
(Personally, if arguing for one of the people pictured as plantiffs, I'd argue there was a reasonable expectation of a sort of privacy, which was violated-- it's the same as a telephoto lens being used, it's technological enhancement, you don't expect a close-range hidden camera to be taking photos of you, a guy with a big apparatus or a cameraphone would be another thing).
Apple allows software to be installed; if they don't want that, they should guard against it. That said, individuals involved in the project clearly didn't anticipate that they could be photographed-- which is sorta kinda the point.
He did not install tracking software, he did not follow people home, and... well, taking unauthorized pictures of people in public and posting them without their permission is legal. (Should it not be?)
That's the whole point: we can have a discussion and we can discuss the law and ethics and etc., and come to some decisions. Or we can be knee-jerk "I'm not sympathetic, he's a stalker" idiots, and get nowhere.
WTF mods up ACs, especially ACs who didn't read the article.
The Stores are public and have glass windows. Businesses operating in the public space are my playground if I want them to be-- that's what "public" means. If they want to be "private," they should move to Saudi Arabia.
Using tonnes of noisy, complicated machinery to move one or two people comfortably and safely around a city is crazy. The same task can be done using much less energy in a lightweight electric vehicle. Powered by renewable energy, mobility becomes entirely emission free. (more)
Trev, the car
With that idea in mind, some clever folks at the University of South Australia created a lightweight and beautiful car which they called Trev: the Two-seater Renewable Energy Vehicle. (more)...
Every heard of cherry picking, you fucking racist:P ?
Remind me to change that Wikipedia article, however, if you'd read on instead of cherry-picking a sentence that *seems to you* to support your argument...
Ah, no problem. I've seen guys walk in at 11:50 when the store was closing at 12, and be told they couldn't purchase because the clerk was *just sure* they were buying the same stuff as some teenagers tried to buy that afternoon. Etc. It can be an excuse, and on this thread, most people seem to be defending "just thought so" versus "saw a teenager had them $20 and ask for a fifth."
I suppose it can be store policy, but most stores don't tend to want to adopt policies that reduce sales. Witness the recent round of state legislation requiring stores to check ID "for anyone who looks under 30"-- that's a real dilemma for stores in rural counties, where 30% of the population of legal age, can not have ID.
1) It's hardly clear to read. It's only because you DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT that you think it's clear. Plus you're racist:P:) .
2) You miss the point. If you think you as a layman can read that reference and decide that the girl in Georgia was violating the law (or that that passage is "clear to read", then by the exact same "logic" BasilBrush is practicing law without a license. Get the the point? No? I didn't really think you would.
Slashdot Mirror
Evidently I should have enclosed the above in tags.
What I figured ;)
... to a democratically elected government...
P.S. Safari sucks.
*kicks idiot in balls*
Chrome? You use Chrome?
You're like the cheapskates who bought IBM-MS-DOS instead of a real OS. Sure, it was *cheaper.* Just like you.
What's a land line?
Er, why wouldn't I?
Oh, you're one of those-- too meek to walk into an Apple Store and demand service. I didn't think such weakminded individuals bought non-Apple, but hey.
*stretches*
*yawns*
Geekboys like you might put up with Android's engineer-inspired interface. People who actually need something usable, well, need something that usability testing has gone into.
/me exits xdisplay and looks at widgets on his iDevices' screens.
I think I'm missing something here.
I'm jailbroken (if you can't ssh in... hell, I don't buy a tree that doesn't allow ssh in). Flash works fine-- pretty much.
Next!
Meh. I've had many a tablet device since my trusty Newton, and currently have both iDevices and Android & etc. I don't think my shiny iThiny is the be all end all; but it's certainly pretty good.
Since my iDevices are jailbroken, I'm not seeing much in feature differences. What I do see, is usability. Android is a pain. Android is not universal across devices; some things work, some don't. It's a repeat of MS/PC/Windows anarchy.
The point here: Apple made tablet devices work for the masses. All the rest seem to be posers.
>Okay, it doesn't have everything that the iPad has,
Such as, for instance, usability.
Witness this article, referenced elsewhere in /. earlier today:
http://www.businessinsider.com/if-the-iphone-5-really-looks-like-this-apple-may-be-screwed-2012-7
which states:
"Now that most phones do the same things and work pretty much the same way, the most obvious (and, arguably, important) difference between them is the screen."
This is hogwash. No tablet comes close to the experience of the iPad; no phone comes close to the effectiveness of the iPhone line. No question-- I'm no fanboy, I think Steve Jobs was a jerk, but Apple simply has done things better.
Okay, buccccckwheat...
All of this info is fairly easily found on the web. Sure, a lot of Drupal documentation is spread here and there in forums, but this is a basic feature of Drupal and there are handbook pages.
Regardless, I used to find myself answering basic multisite questions on IRC every few days (usually from people who barely understood Apache), so maybe there's some point to this. At least, I'll be able to refer people to a book :P
Otherwise, as someonbe else has said, I'm not sure what the point of such a book is. Or perhaps I need to write a book on basic mouse manipulation: lowest common denominator == best market ?
Well, I'm assuming that his account is accurate. If he re-installed, etc, then there are many other potential legal problems (for instance, trespass-- I talked tp a much better legal scholar than myself about this, a few hours ago, who was willing to consider this as trespass or similar offense).
I took the position that this guy violated privacy and should be prosecuted, and the legal scholar shrugged his shoulders and said the venue was public and people had no expectation of privacy there-- especially if it was "art." S/he then argued that if an artist used a telephoto lens to look in my window, but then used the images for "art" or "public commentary," it was protected in the US.
I don't think we want that, and I don't think that's "right." If we accept the foregoing, I imagine, an "artist" will soon be able to take naked pics with a small 'bot in a dressing room, and then publish them as "art" with protection under US "free speech."
Unfortunately in the US, the legal context doesn't provide many tools for making distinctions or walling off a realm that's not open to inspection (and publication) if the stated interest is not commercial (ie, "art" or "academic"). Yet I suspect the US's Constitutional framers, somehow, did not intend that pillow talk could be recorded by any third party and repeated as a matter of "free speech and expression."
Alas, too little will to explore and define these matters in the US (as with so much else). Looking forward to my next stay back in Belgium or CZ.
Evidently they did not image every day.
You're right that just because it's *technically possible* it's not necessarily legal (much less right). But the whole point here, is that it's not clear why it would be wrong. The US does not have the kind of privacy expectation that has arisen in E.U. nations. Why is there a problem?
Otherwise, as currently info reads, Apple should have put up a EULA or such preventing this. But that doesn't really get to the core of the issue, does it?
Except, well, they were machines made publically available, with software install rights. If they didn't want stuff installed, they should do like my public library, and reboot into a new session for everyone... *seriously,* it's not hard.
I don't have the right? Holy lack of disciplined, analytic thought on SlashDot, BatBuddy!
Please cite one piece of relevant statute or case law. Because Apple seems to be encouraging users to install software on those machines, and no charges were filed. Certainly looks like he had the "right" to me.
(Personally, if arguing for one of the people pictured as plantiffs, I'd argue there was a reasonable expectation of a sort of privacy, which was violated-- it's the same as a telephoto lens being used, it's technological enhancement, you don't expect a close-range hidden camera to be taking photos of you, a guy with a big apparatus or a cameraphone would be another thing).
Apple allows software to be installed; if they don't want that, they should guard against it. That said, individuals involved in the project clearly didn't anticipate that they could be photographed-- which is sorta kinda the point.
He did not install tracking software, he did not follow people home, and ... well, taking unauthorized pictures of people in public and posting them without their permission is legal. (Should it not be?)
That's the whole point: we can have a discussion and we can discuss the law and ethics and etc., and come to some decisions. Or we can be knee-jerk "I'm not sympathetic, he's a stalker" idiots, and get nowhere.
WTF mods up ACs, especially ACs who didn't read the article.
The Stores are public and have glass windows. Businesses operating in the public space are my playground if I want them to be-- that's what "public" means. If they want to be "private," they should move to Saudi Arabia.
Did you miss that the store has glass windows?
It was legal. You're a moron.
21mph? Not exactly practical.
See http://teamtrev.com/ :
http://teamtrev.com/about/
Trev, the idea
Using tonnes of noisy, complicated machinery to move one or two people comfortably and safely around a city is crazy. The same task can be done using much less energy in a lightweight electric vehicle. Powered by renewable energy, mobility becomes entirely emission free. (more)
Trev, the car
With that idea in mind, some clever folks at the University of South Australia created a lightweight and beautiful car which they called Trev: the Two-seater Renewable Energy Vehicle. (more) ...
Every heard of cherry picking, you fucking racist :P ?
Remind me to change that Wikipedia article, however, if you'd read on instead of cherry-picking a sentence that *seems to you* to support your argument...
Ah, no problem. I've seen guys walk in at 11:50 when the store was closing at 12, and be told they couldn't purchase because the clerk was *just sure* they were buying the same stuff as some teenagers tried to buy that afternoon. Etc. It can be an excuse, and on this thread, most people seem to be defending "just thought so" versus "saw a teenager had them $20 and ask for a fifth."
I suppose it can be store policy, but most stores don't tend to want to adopt policies that reduce sales. Witness the recent round of state legislation requiring stores to check ID "for anyone who looks under 30"-- that's a real dilemma for stores in rural counties, where 30% of the population of legal age, can not have ID.
1) It's hardly clear to read. It's only because you DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT that you think it's clear. Plus you're racist :P :) .
2) You miss the point. If you think you as a layman can read that reference and decide that the girl in Georgia was violating the law (or that that passage is "clear to read", then by the exact same "logic" BasilBrush is practicing law without a license. Get the the point? No? I didn't really think you would.