I guess in the spirit of getting the public all jacked up over this, "anonymous reader" failed to notice that the linked article describes a single Israeli expert, not experts.
"So the iPhone has significantly lower resolution than the retina."
No, the resolution of the iPhone display is only lower than the retina at distances closer to the eye than 18 inches. At further distances, the resolution of the iPhone is higher than the retina.
The guy also said the iPhone's resolution was comparable to the Motorola Droid, but the iPhone 4 actually has 50% more pixels than the Droid.
If the demos suck in all other browsers Apple could point to that and say "Hey, told you so.
That's not the message Apple wants to send. If you're trying to promote HTML5 and terminate Flash, what you describe would be a stupid message. All people would say then is, "Clearly I'm not ready for HTML5. Just let me continue with Flash."
Since there is no way I can test them with Firefox I do not know whether they really "look like crap" there.
Poor baby! If you care, you can download Safari. If you use Linux, try the demos on the developer page in Google Chrome for Linux. They work in Chrome for the most part.
Perfectly awful in other browsers. Why should Apple beg for trouble in its pro-HTML5, anti-Flash stance by allowing access to browsers that will make the demos look like crap?
No, that's not the point and it's also incorrect/irrelevant.
The point is that HTML5 can/will support the behaviors displayed in the Apple demos. I think pretty much everybody here knows HTML5 hasn't been ratified, so it's technically not a standard. What apparently many people here, including yourself, don't know is that Safari is one of the best browsers around for HTML5 in its present state. (Safari was also one of the first--if not the first--main stream browser to pass the acid3 test).
The developer page loads just fine in Chrome, but you'll notice the demos don't work as well as they do in Safari. That would suggest Safari supports HTML5 better than Chrome--at least in the ways tested by the demos. So you see, talking about HTML5 compatibility right now isn't really relevant, but it is entirely fair for Apple to want to showcase what HTML5 can/will do and to coax users into using to Safari to see the demos properly.
That makes perfect sense, since Firefox can't handle the demos. Why bother letting users load nonfunctional or broken demos--possibly even crashing their browser in the process--when the whole purpose of Apple's website is to showcase what HTML5 allows?
The fact that the developer link works semi-adequately in Google Chrome--and not just for me but for other users posting here, too--indicates that you just don't recognize how helpful Apple is trying to be and what anti-Apple trolls you and the slashdot moderators truly are. My sincere guess is that you're using a HTML5-braindead browser--Firefox perhaps. Apple would prefer you see the demos as functional works. I'd think you'd prefer that, too, unless your agenda is also to stifle HTML5 adoption.
The fact that the/. moderators give your post a 5 and don't highlight the developer link which doesn't require UA spoofing shows how absolutely evil/. is.
You - no offense - provide absolutely no insight to the matter, regardless of what the - no offense - dick moderators think. The title of the/. post reads "Standards Gallery Not Standard". The demos are viewable in other browsers, such as Chrome (where the demos mostly work), by going to the developer page. Asking users to download Safari has nothing to do with HTML5 standards but reflects currently how well supported the unratified HTML5 standard is across browsers. If HTML5 allows all the things Apple shows, what's wrong with asking users to download Safari if that's the only way currently to see the demos in their full glory?
This developer link should be modded to 5, even though it detracts from the anti-Apple message/. is trying to promote.
Sorry,/., but you're simply evil in this way.
Example: start torrents on home network and travel around using mobile data
If you want to pay once for data, then have your home network disabled while you use mobile data. It'll never happen.
I have to admit caffeine doesn't improve my productivity but actually hurts it by making me fidgety. On the plus side, though, caffeine gives me higher highs than I would ever have naturally. I very much enjoy the highs and consider them a luxury, with the price paid in lowered productivity.
Apparently you didn't get the memo: we already have a massive tragedy of the commons. For instance, those who get the grants for development retain control of the code. Many fewer people use the code because it's encumbered. For another instance, GPLed code is of most use to companies that have big bankrolls--money either to license the code, money to reverse engineer it, or occasionally money to contribute to it even though it's unprofitable. "BSD" code would be of use to every developer.
Before GPL, the Inter-tubes were highly populated with BSD-licensed code. That was the era before developers became so self-absorbed.
In closing, it's a social thing, based on social attitudes that have been lost and need to be reignited. You think more openness would lead to (a bigger) tragedy, but that's only because you aren't buying into it. It's the chicken or egg again, and you're chicken.
The plaintiff claims every downloader is also necessarily an uploader of the infringing copyrighted material. However, the fact that a downloader has the potential to be an uploader doesn't necessarily mean they actually uploaded any part of the Hurt Locker or any other "infringing copyrighted material". It's quite possible for a downloader to have a vast collection of files available for upload and that the vast majority of them available are not infringing and that no portion of the Hurt Locker was ever uploaded.
I'll second that! I am so sick of the smugness coming from developers who release their code under the GPL. Imagine where we could be if social pressure was instead applied toward making code public domain or at least "BSD" licensed. In particular, this should be the case if the work is funded at all by government grants.
Just for example...
Every fashion designer of significance will have a valued trademark.
Every automobile manufacturer has a trademark and applies for design patents and process patents.
Copyright does not in itself prohibit reverse engineering.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess in the spirit of getting the public all jacked up over this, "anonymous reader" failed to notice that the linked article describes a single Israeli expert, not experts.
Jared Newman got up on the wrong side of the bed, but he's been rewarded by CmdrTaco with loads of clicks.
The iPhone 4 also has 50% more pixels than the Motorola Droid, which the expert had said was "comparable".
No, the resolution of the iPhone display is only lower than the retina at distances closer to the eye than 18 inches. At further distances, the resolution of the iPhone is higher than the retina.
The guy also said the iPhone's resolution was comparable to the Motorola Droid, but the iPhone 4 actually has 50% more pixels than the Droid.
If the demos suck in all other browsers Apple could point to that and say "Hey, told you so.
That's not the message Apple wants to send. If you're trying to promote HTML5 and terminate Flash, what you describe would be a stupid message. All people would say then is, "Clearly I'm not ready for HTML5. Just let me continue with Flash."
Since there is no way I can test them with Firefox I do not know whether they really "look like crap" there.
Poor baby! If you care, you can download Safari. If you use Linux, try the demos on the developer page in Google Chrome for Linux. They work in Chrome for the most part.
We have standards in English for a reason, too!
Perfectly awful in other browsers. Why should Apple beg for trouble in its pro-HTML5, anti-Flash stance by allowing access to browsers that will make the demos look like crap?
No, that's not the point and it's also incorrect/irrelevant. The point is that HTML5 can/will support the behaviors displayed in the Apple demos. I think pretty much everybody here knows HTML5 hasn't been ratified, so it's technically not a standard. What apparently many people here, including yourself, don't know is that Safari is one of the best browsers around for HTML5 in its present state. (Safari was also one of the first--if not the first--main stream browser to pass the acid3 test).
The developer page loads just fine in Chrome, but you'll notice the demos don't work as well as they do in Safari. That would suggest Safari supports HTML5 better than Chrome--at least in the ways tested by the demos. So you see, talking about HTML5 compatibility right now isn't really relevant, but it is entirely fair for Apple to want to showcase what HTML5 can/will do and to coax users into using to Safari to see the demos properly.
Why is /. wasting our time on this? It's not at all surprising.
Oh, yeah, yet another baseless opportunity to dump on Apple.
That makes perfect sense, since Firefox can't handle the demos. Why bother letting users load nonfunctional or broken demos--possibly even crashing their browser in the process--when the whole purpose of Apple's website is to showcase what HTML5 allows?
The fact that the developer link works semi-adequately in Google Chrome--and not just for me but for other users posting here, too--indicates that you just don't recognize how helpful Apple is trying to be and what anti-Apple trolls you and the slashdot moderators truly are . My sincere guess is that you're using a HTML5-braindead browser--Firefox perhaps. Apple would prefer you see the demos as functional works. I'd think you'd prefer that, too, unless your agenda is also to stifle HTML5 adoption.
The fact that the /. moderators give your post a 5 and don't highlight the developer link which doesn't require UA spoofing shows how absolutely evil /. is.
You - no offense - provide absolutely no insight to the matter, regardless of what the - no offense - dick moderators think. The title of the /. post reads "Standards Gallery Not Standard". The demos are viewable in other browsers, such as Chrome (where the demos mostly work), by going to the developer page. Asking users to download Safari has nothing to do with HTML5 standards but reflects currently how well supported the unratified HTML5 standard is across browsers. If HTML5 allows all the things Apple shows, what's wrong with asking users to download Safari if that's the only way currently to see the demos in their full glory?
This developer link should be modded to 5, even though it detracts from the anti-Apple message /. is trying to promote.
Sorry, /., but you're simply evil in this way.
Example: start torrents on home network and travel around using mobile data If you want to pay once for data, then have your home network disabled while you use mobile data. It'll never happen.
I have to admit caffeine doesn't improve my productivity but actually hurts it by making me fidgety. On the plus side, though, caffeine gives me higher highs than I would ever have naturally. I very much enjoy the highs and consider them a luxury, with the price paid in lowered productivity.
Heck, no! That's not going to change anything when the moderators have an unbiased opinion to promote.
Apparently you didn't get the memo: we already have a massive tragedy of the commons. For instance, those who get the grants for development retain control of the code. Many fewer people use the code because it's encumbered. For another instance, GPLed code is of most use to companies that have big bankrolls--money either to license the code, money to reverse engineer it, or occasionally money to contribute to it even though it's unprofitable. "BSD" code would be of use to every developer.
Before GPL, the Inter-tubes were highly populated with BSD-licensed code. That was the era before developers became so self-absorbed.
In closing, it's a social thing, based on social attitudes that have been lost and need to be reignited. You think more openness would lead to (a bigger) tragedy, but that's only because you aren't buying into it. It's the chicken or egg again, and you're chicken.
The plaintiff claims every downloader is also necessarily an uploader of the infringing copyrighted material. However, the fact that a downloader has the potential to be an uploader doesn't necessarily mean they actually uploaded any part of the Hurt Locker or any other "infringing copyrighted material". It's quite possible for a downloader to have a vast collection of files available for upload and that the vast majority of them available are not infringing and that no portion of the Hurt Locker was ever uploaded.
I'll second that! I am so sick of the smugness coming from developers who release their code under the GPL. Imagine where we could be if social pressure was instead applied toward making code public domain or at least "BSD" licensed. In particular, this should be the case if the work is funded at all by government grants.
A "BSD" license is open.
Man, I could smell your feet a mile away!
Smile away!
Just for example...
Every fashion designer of significance will have a valued trademark.
Every automobile manufacturer has a trademark and applies for design patents and process patents.
Copyright does not in itself prohibit reverse engineering.