I live in northern MN and the decision to use asphalt or concrete is based on many factors, none of which are the deterioration sure to salt. Frost heaves, and snow plows do most of the damage. The damage from salt is negligible in comparison.
Many times cost is the major factor. The standard plan for highways is about 5 years and then replace. If they start with concrete then after 5 years they can grid it up and use it as a base for asphalt. 5 more years and they strip it down to the ground and start over. However, more recent road construction has begun using a bituminous material for redoing asphalt roads.
Either way after 3 or 4 years the roads suck, and by 5 it can be dangerous. They also have to be repaired after every winter due to cracking.
People have long known about AT&T's spotty/weak signal. Is it any wonder that the iPhone is programmed this way? The only reason it's a problem now is because they actually improved the ability to connect to the network. That and the whole antenna issue. The question still remains, at least in my mind, "Will this actually improve reception?" Form what I've seen it's not a matter of the displayed signal being wrong, but one of reception. Visually it may appear to have better signal, or at least an accurate signal, but it doesn't solve the dropped call issue. The people having problems making/keeping calls are still going to have these problems.
It's not illegal because anytime anyone tries to do anything outside of Apple's closed loop legal terms, they get sued. Apple is always going to be preemptive. A soon as they let one slip by they lose.
Let us not forget that, unlike Apple, Microsoft creates almost exclusively software. At least that is what they are in trouble for. Apple creates not only software but the hardware that it runs on. While their software is open, their hardware is far form it. How many times have companies tried to copy Apple's hardware and gotten sued? Even the ones who didn't try to rip offew their OS.
It doesn't matter how open they pretend to make their software. If they close off their hardware, and make the software acceptance procedure ambiguous they are not open. Hell, they just had an antitrust inquiry two months ago.
I totally agree. A gyroscope? Amazing idea. A ridiculous resolution? Fabulous.
Unfortunately, they (apple) have done too much that I consider unethical to ever buy/use their products. And their QC solution to their recent antenna problem is not something most consumers would accept, except anyone who used Vista.
Clearly wrong? Definitely. They even admitted it. The legality is the topic in question. Is it illegal to go into someone's house if they leave it unlocked? Yes, a little, but that's not really accurate. It's more like they opened up your car door that you left unlocked. Which is a little harder to make stick.
Ethics and illegal don't belong in the same argument. There are many things that are perfectly legal that are very unethical, and vice versa. Also, ethics are as much an individual trait as they are a social one. Just because you think something is unethical doesn't mean everyone else does. A general observation, not a comment on this situation.
Finally, I would call your racist comments and slurs far more unethical than anything Google's has done. Your ignorance and hypocrisy have no place here. I hope that you will heed your own advice.
I'd have to say that having a "private" conversation in public makes it a public conversation.
If you aren't trying to keep what you believe to be a private conversation private, while in public, then there is no reason for an individual to suspect that the conversation is private. As my parents used to say "I'm not psychic, don't make me guess."
That being said, does having an unsecured wireless network make it public? Imagine a world where wireless communication is the norm. Everyone knows how to secure their networks, similar to how most people know how to keep verbal conversations private. If secured wireless is the norm and, unsecured wireless is almost unheard of, would it then be the persons fault and not Google's for not properly protecting themselves?
Obviously this isn't the way it is, yet. And for note, this that lack the proper knowledge should have some protection, but Google's perspective may be similar to many Slashdotter's. "Who still has an unsecured wireless network theses days?"
Unfortunately, expressing thoughts and feelings using proper, our even adequate, english is a challenge for some.
Also, since when is 2500 people enough to brag about? I used to play in a cover band in a piddly-ass town and I'm fairly certain we had more people than that on one our two occasions.
Does something like this constitute a "bait and switch?" I realize that they aren't actually removing any features, but they are changing the terms of service in a way that could disable key features of their product if the user doesn't want to give up their privacy.
I would just like to thank the NPB for giving all of us the opportunity to respond to this. The response letter and subsequent comments have been absolutely hilarious and have made my day if not my week and perhaps even my month.
Thanks again NPB!!!
Slashdot Mirror
I live in northern MN and the decision to use asphalt or concrete is based on many factors, none of which are the deterioration sure to salt. Frost heaves, and snow plows do most of the damage. The damage from salt is negligible in comparison. Many times cost is the major factor. The standard plan for highways is about 5 years and then replace. If they start with concrete then after 5 years they can grid it up and use it as a base for asphalt. 5 more years and they strip it down to the ground and start over. However, more recent road construction has begun using a bituminous material for redoing asphalt roads. Either way after 3 or 4 years the roads suck, and by 5 it can be dangerous. They also have to be repaired after every winter due to cracking.
People have long known about AT&T's spotty/weak signal. Is it any wonder that the iPhone is programmed this way? The only reason it's a problem now is because they actually improved the ability to connect to the network. That and the whole antenna issue. The question still remains, at least in my mind, "Will this actually improve reception?" Form what I've seen it's not a matter of the displayed signal being wrong, but one of reception. Visually it may appear to have better signal, or at least an accurate signal, but it doesn't solve the dropped call issue. The people having problems making/keeping calls are still going to have these problems.
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/05/03/1952258/Apple-May-Face-Antitrust-Inquiry?art_pos=7 As an example. If one were told that the entire world were open to them but that world was defined as a single 12x12 foot (3.658x3.658 meters) room, is that still open?
It's not illegal because anytime anyone tries to do anything outside of Apple's closed loop legal terms, they get sued. Apple is always going to be preemptive. A soon as they let one slip by they lose. Let us not forget that, unlike Apple, Microsoft creates almost exclusively software. At least that is what they are in trouble for. Apple creates not only software but the hardware that it runs on. While their software is open, their hardware is far form it. How many times have companies tried to copy Apple's hardware and gotten sued? Even the ones who didn't try to rip offew their OS. It doesn't matter how open they pretend to make their software. If they close off their hardware, and make the software acceptance procedure ambiguous they are not open. Hell, they just had an antitrust inquiry two months ago.
"What are these people on?" Apples, laced with powderized iPhones.
I totally agree. A gyroscope? Amazing idea. A ridiculous resolution? Fabulous. Unfortunately, they (apple) have done too much that I consider unethical to ever buy/use their products. And their QC solution to their recent antenna problem is not something most consumers would accept, except anyone who used Vista.
Clearly wrong? Definitely. They even admitted it. The legality is the topic in question. Is it illegal to go into someone's house if they leave it unlocked? Yes, a little, but that's not really accurate. It's more like they opened up your car door that you left unlocked. Which is a little harder to make stick. Ethics and illegal don't belong in the same argument. There are many things that are perfectly legal that are very unethical, and vice versa. Also, ethics are as much an individual trait as they are a social one. Just because you think something is unethical doesn't mean everyone else does. A general observation, not a comment on this situation. Finally, I would call your racist comments and slurs far more unethical than anything Google's has done. Your ignorance and hypocrisy have no place here. I hope that you will heed your own advice.
I'd have to say that having a "private" conversation in public makes it a public conversation. If you aren't trying to keep what you believe to be a private conversation private, while in public, then there is no reason for an individual to suspect that the conversation is private. As my parents used to say "I'm not psychic, don't make me guess." That being said, does having an unsecured wireless network make it public? Imagine a world where wireless communication is the norm. Everyone knows how to secure their networks, similar to how most people know how to keep verbal conversations private. If secured wireless is the norm and, unsecured wireless is almost unheard of, would it then be the persons fault and not Google's for not properly protecting themselves? Obviously this isn't the way it is, yet. And for note, this that lack the proper knowledge should have some protection, but Google's perspective may be similar to many Slashdotter's. "Who still has an unsecured wireless network theses days?"
Unfortunately, expressing thoughts and feelings using proper, our even adequate, english is a challenge for some. Also, since when is 2500 people enough to brag about? I used to play in a cover band in a piddly-ass town and I'm fairly certain we had more people than that on one our two occasions.
Does something like this constitute a "bait and switch?" I realize that they aren't actually removing any features, but they are changing the terms of service in a way that could disable key features of their product if the user doesn't want to give up their privacy.
I would just like to thank the NPB for giving all of us the opportunity to respond to this. The response letter and subsequent comments have been absolutely hilarious and have made my day if not my week and perhaps even my month. Thanks again NPB!!!