And a couple of days ago there was an article about how Apple had started allowing Bluetooth data communications. Not only was this totally wrong (nothing had changed) but anyone who knew anything about Bluetooth on phones or who researched the topic for 5 minutes would have known this.
I think summaries like these are (and should be) very embarrassing for slashdot.
Are the editors here paid or are they volunteer (I will cut them more slack if they are volunteers)?
Pay-as-you-go, otherwise known as you just pay for what you use, is the solution.
If everyone has unlimited plans then the carriers will put huge restrictions on your use (e.g. tethering), mainly because they have to in order to maintain a sane network, but also in order to prevent us from using services that threaten them (e.g. Skype over 3G).
Give me metered service at a reasonable rate and I will use things like Skype all the time, but I will be forced to switch to Wi-Fi when I want to download Blue-ray movies (poor me).
We want the carriers to end up like the water and electricity companies. Do you think they should provide unlimited service at a flat rate?
And a few hours later then is already another item - "the new data centre capitol of america" - that contains a single link and lo-and-behold that link is also to skunkpost.
Is there some relationship between/. and skunkpost or are the skunkpost people just systematically using/. to promote their site?
The link in the summary goes to a page at 'skunkpost' that merely reprints an AP article.
I don't care about skunkpost or AP, but if it is AP's article then the link should go to the original. Otherwise we will get sites simply reprinting other people's articles and then submitting their reprint to/. etc.
I realize this problem is as old as the Internet (probably much older) but it would be SO EASY for/. to stop contributing to the problem.
I'm hoping they will offer Amazon products and media.
I'm not really interested in buying Android apps from them but I'll happily buy their books, music, movies, and other merchandise. And when I do I don't want some other company taking a cut or interfering in the process.
And though I doubt that I would be buying apps from them rather then the Google Market, I wouldn't rule it out.
Why did everyone expect Flash sites to work perfectly on mobile, without any tweaking?
I don't remember HTML+js doing the same. Actually, I still find that using a non-mobile site on my phone is very annoying. I don't remember people concluding that HTML+js was not suitable for phones and should be junked.
But apparently, the fact that some randomly chosen Flash sites are crappy on a phone, proves Steve Jobs right. I'm actually impressed with how well Flash sites work on phones without any tweaking.
To me, this all proves how disparately people want Steve Jobs to be right.
Google has hesitated to do it that way because it is very hard for developers to write their apps like that.
For the most part, the app has a certain set of requirements - that are clearly stated to the user - and without those requirements being satisfied the app can't run. You can't pick and choose which requirements you want to allow.
The most important requirements are access to personal data. If an app that has no business reading your e-mail lists shows this as a requirement then don't install it. Hopefully the developers will have to go back and remove that requirement.
Personally, I would only allow access to my personal data to apps that come from companies or people that I really trust.
I've seen a number of articles saying the same thing and I think it is getting ridiculous.
Have you tried viewing a heavy HTML/CSS/JS web site on your phone recently? Did you enjoy it? After a couple of years of sites getting optimized for mobile, and in some cases, separate mobile versions being created, many websites are still unusable on my phone.
So we are surprised that a few flash sites, selected based on unspecified criteria, totally suck?
For comparison, here's the story of a guy who felt that the user experience of the iOS version of his sophisticated and heavy Flash application was "great" (he used Adobe's converter, before Apple nixed the idea). http://blog.lovelycharts.com/ Please take the time to read this - it is short. Note that I am in no way associated with this company or product. Actually I have nothing to do with Adobe and I don't even like Flash but let's knock off this silliness. Get back to me if people discover that flash sites CAN't be made to work well on phones and tablets.
I like the HTC phones but don't like Sense. I want a stock Google Android like on the N1, but I want to be able to get it on a range of devices. I believe that my situation is common, e.g. the stock Google Android is ideal for businesses.
In theory, Cyanogenmod gives me that, but I will want to wait for 6.1.
Also, it would be nice if they included an option to remove (or simply not include) all of those extras that they provide. Those extras are great for most of their current audience, but for support purposes one just wants the basics.
It really is a shame that the Nexus series has not succeeded, but perhaps that is an opportunity for Cyanogenmod?
All the law requires is a basic degree of honesty: don't pretend that the review is simply your opinion if you are actually being paid to take a certain position. There was a/. article this week about this same problem in political blogging. In all cases the consumer can make a better evaluation of any review (or political opinion) if they know whether the author was paid for the position they are taking.
What I don't get is this part: > Originally, the fear was that this regulation would target the small-time blogger Why should small-time bloggers be allowed to deceive their readers if big-time bloggers can't?
I don't know what that means, but I'm glad that you brought Apple into this...
However nasty Sony's action in this case it is not jail breaking. Sony is taking action to protect their DRM. This would be equivalent to Apple taking action to protect fairplay.
Jail-breaking refers to cracking the bigger lock on Apple's iOS platform.
If we are careless with the terminology we will confuse the issues.
He was just making an observation that someone (Pojut) may be in the habit of making short, attention getting comments partially to promote his site. On the Internet, where 90% of content is self promotion, it is a worthwhile thing to consider.
I'm surprised to see everybody dumping on this guy.
Why is everyone getting so excited about this (Google buying stuff)?
This is what Apple did and no one complains about that. Just like Google Search is a single thing that Google has dramatically developed over the years, so is the iPod/iPhone/iPad. Only difference is that Apple didn't develop that themselves - they bought the idea and the team that developed it.
Not so fast. The whole thing is much more complicated then the summary makes it sound.
Speaking of which, why did Slashdot choose a summary that reads like a one-side press release? Look at this again "With ubiquitous h264 support on mobile devices, personal computers and all other types of media devices, this assures that h264 will remain the de facto standard for video playback for the foreseeable future."
For many, just when they started getting DRM free music from iTunes is when they started buying video and now books. Don't they have the same lock-in issue?
Regarding upgrading - are you telling me that people payed twice for the same thing?
In theory 'Preloaded' applications on an Android phone would not be that bad. Uninstalling apps on Android is simple and doesn't leave much of a trace - compared to preloaded apps on Windows this is much easier to deal with.
But 'preloaded' apps that you can't uninstall is a deal breaker.
What we need is a premium brand for Android phones. A brand where we pay a bit more to get something without the preloaded apps, with no shortcuts taken on the hardware, and with fast updates to
new versions of Android.
I was hoping that the Nexus line were going to be that, but I guess that is not to be.
To me the annoying part is that they force this on you. It isn't opt-in or even opt-out.
This part doesn't impress me:
"Apple collects such data from customers who have approved the use of location-based capabilities on the phone and who actually use an application that requires GPS."
Unless I read that wrong, that would apply to just about everyone.
No, it's not the same thing as what's being done in the US.
You might have to use your name to buy a cell phone here, but you don't have to use your name online. Individual websites requiring the use of real names is a totally different thing then the gov't requiring it. Imagine how people would react if the U.S. gov't said everyone must use their real names online!
As well, using my real name is not dangerous here, whereas in China you have a reason to not use your real name. I think it is pretty obvious that the government is proposing this to better control people and what they write online.
I think it would be a great thing if the citizens of China could enjoy freedom of expression and freedom from censorship online. Unfortunately, this appears quite unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
And a couple of days ago there was an article about how Apple had started allowing Bluetooth data communications. Not only was this totally wrong (nothing had changed) but anyone who knew anything about Bluetooth on phones or who researched the topic for 5 minutes would have known this.
I think summaries like these are (and should be) very embarrassing for slashdot.
Are the editors here paid or are they volunteer (I will cut them more slack if they are volunteers)?
Huh?
Pay-as-you-go, otherwise known as you just pay for what you use, is the solution.
If everyone has unlimited plans then the carriers will put huge restrictions on your use (e.g. tethering), mainly because they have to in order to maintain a sane network, but also in order to prevent us from using services that threaten them (e.g. Skype over 3G).
Give me metered service at a reasonable rate and I will use things like Skype all the time, but I will be forced to switch to Wi-Fi when I want to download Blue-ray movies (poor me).
We want the carriers to end up like the water and electricity companies. Do you think they should provide unlimited service at a flat rate?
And a few hours later then is already another item - "the new data centre capitol of america" - that contains a single link and lo-and-behold that link is also to skunkpost.
Is there some relationship between /. and skunkpost or are the skunkpost people just systematically using /. to promote their site?
The link in the summary goes to a page at 'skunkpost' that merely reprints an AP article.
I don't care about skunkpost or AP, but if it is AP's article then the link should go to the original. Otherwise we will get sites simply reprinting other people's articles and then submitting their reprint to /. etc.
I realize this problem is as old as the Internet (probably much older) but it would be SO EASY for /. to stop contributing to the problem.
I'm hoping they will offer Amazon products and media.
I'm not really interested in buying Android apps from them but I'll happily buy their books, music, movies, and other merchandise. And when I do I don't want some other company taking a cut or interfering in the process.
And though I doubt that I would be buying apps from them rather then the Google Market, I wouldn't rule it out.
Why did everyone expect Flash sites to work perfectly on mobile, without any tweaking?
I don't remember HTML+js doing the same. Actually, I still find that using a non-mobile site on my phone is very annoying. I don't remember people concluding that HTML+js was not suitable for phones and should be junked.
But apparently, the fact that some randomly chosen Flash sites are crappy on a phone, proves Steve Jobs right. I'm actually impressed with how well Flash sites work on phones without any tweaking.
To me, this all proves how disparately people want Steve Jobs to be right.
Google has hesitated to do it that way because it is very hard for developers to write their apps like that.
For the most part, the app has a certain set of requirements - that are clearly stated to the user - and without those requirements being satisfied the app can't run. You can't pick and choose which requirements you want to allow.
The most important requirements are access to personal data. If an app that has no business reading your e-mail lists shows this as a requirement then don't install it. Hopefully the developers will have to go back and remove that requirement.
Personally, I would only allow access to my personal data to apps that come from companies or people that I really trust.
Agreed.
Whether he is guilty or innocent, Wikileaks should not be about him.
If it is ever about individuals, it is about the whistle-blowers. The wikileaks website is just a tool that helps them blow the whistle anonymously.
He should turn it over to a foundation where he can be one of the board members.
I've seen a number of articles saying the same thing and I think it is getting ridiculous.
Have you tried viewing a heavy HTML/CSS/JS web site on your phone recently? Did you enjoy it? After a couple of years of sites getting optimized for mobile, and in some cases, separate mobile versions being created, many websites are still unusable on my phone.
So we are surprised that a few flash sites, selected based on unspecified criteria, totally suck?
For comparison, here's the story of a guy who felt that the user experience of the iOS version of his sophisticated and heavy Flash application was "great" (he used Adobe's converter, before Apple nixed the idea).
http://blog.lovelycharts.com/
Please take the time to read this - it is short. Note that I am in no way associated with this company or product. Actually I have nothing to do with Adobe and I don't even like Flash but let's knock off this silliness. Get back to me if people discover that flash sites CAN't be made to work well on phones and tablets.
I like the HTC phones but don't like Sense. I want a stock Google Android like on the N1, but I want to be able to get it on a range of devices. I believe that my situation is common, e.g. the stock Google Android is ideal for businesses.
In theory, Cyanogenmod gives me that, but I will want to wait for 6.1.
Also, it would be nice if they included an option to remove (or simply not include) all of those extras that they provide. Those extras are great for most of their current audience, but for support purposes one just wants the basics.
It really is a shame that the Nexus series has not succeeded, but perhaps that is an opportunity for Cyanogenmod?
All the law requires is a basic degree of honesty: don't pretend that the review is simply your opinion if you are actually being paid to take a certain position. There was a /. article this week about this same problem in political blogging. In all cases the consumer can make a better evaluation of any review (or political opinion) if they know whether the author was paid for the position they are taking.
What I don't get is this part:
> Originally, the fear was that this regulation would target the small-time blogger
Why should small-time bloggers be allowed to deceive their readers if big-time bloggers can't?
I don't know what that means, but I'm glad that you brought Apple into this...
However nasty Sony's action in this case it is not jail breaking. Sony is taking action to protect their DRM. This would be equivalent to Apple taking action to protect fairplay.
Jail-breaking refers to cracking the bigger lock on Apple's iOS platform.
If we are careless with the terminology we will confuse the issues.
He was just making an observation that someone (Pojut) may be in the habit of making short, attention getting comments partially to promote his site. On the Internet, where 90% of content is self promotion, it is a worthwhile thing to consider.
I'm surprised to see everybody dumping on this guy.
Why is everyone getting so excited about this (Google buying stuff)?
This is what Apple did and no one complains about that. Just like Google Search is a single thing that Google has dramatically developed over the years, so is the iPod/iPhone/iPad. Only difference is that Apple didn't develop that themselves - they bought the idea and the team that developed it.
What's the big deal?
Not so fast. The whole thing is much more complicated then the summary makes it sound.
Speaking of which, why did Slashdot choose a summary that reads like a one-side press release? Look at this again "With ubiquitous h264 support on mobile devices, personal computers and all other types of media devices, this assures that h264 will remain the de facto standard for video playback for the foreseeable future."
Who said it would be stupid?
They make much more money off of iOS users then mac users. Pushing iOS up into more and more devices is simply good business.
I don't think it is good for consumers, but that's not the point.
Whether he is innocent or not, this is a good reminder. Wikileaks should not be about him or any other individual.
The defensiveness of your post speaks for itself.
For many, just when they started getting DRM free music from iTunes is when they started buying video and now books. Don't they have the same lock-in issue?
Regarding upgrading - are you telling me that people payed twice for the same thing?
You forgot a huge reason.
You bought DRM'ed media from Apple in the past and Apple won't let you play it on their competitors' devices.
Back in the jail with y'all !
Putting the bloatware on the phone (or PC) allows the vendor to sell it for less. The difference is small but most consumers are very price conscious.
If you aren't willing to pay anything more then the current prices then you won't get a phone without bloatware.
I think Android is great but this really sucks.
In theory 'Preloaded' applications on an Android phone would not be that bad. Uninstalling apps on Android is simple and doesn't leave much of a trace - compared to preloaded apps on Windows this is much easier to deal with.
But 'preloaded' apps that you can't uninstall is a deal breaker.
What we need is a premium brand for Android phones. A brand where we pay a bit more to get something without the preloaded apps, with no shortcuts taken on the hardware, and with fast updates to
new versions of Android.
I was hoping that the Nexus line were going to be that, but I guess that is not to be.
To me the annoying part is that they force this on you. It isn't opt-in or even opt-out.
This part doesn't impress me:
"Apple collects such data from customers who have approved the use of location-based capabilities on the phone and who actually use an application that requires GPS."
Unless I read that wrong, that would apply to just about everyone.
No, it's not the same thing as what's being done in the US.
You might have to use your name to buy a cell phone here, but you don't have to use your name online. Individual websites requiring the use of real names is a totally different thing then the gov't requiring it. Imagine how people would react if the U.S. gov't said everyone must use their real names online!
As well, using my real name is not dangerous here, whereas in China you have a reason to not use your real name. I think it is pretty obvious that the government is proposing this to better control people and what they write online.
I think it would be a great thing if the citizens of China could enjoy freedom of expression and freedom from censorship online. Unfortunately, this appears quite unlikely.