I'm not sure what is "improper" about the current support. Almost all apps scale up nicely to the large screen on the Galaxy Tab and there are tons of on-screen keyboards that work well on the big screen. For web browsing, Kindle, PDF viewing, and viewing and editing Office docs, the bigger screen is god-sent.
I'm sure Android 3.0 will have some nice features, but you don't need it for a good tablet experience.
Umm, we're not talking about iOS here, we're talking about Mac OS, which doesn't require you to buy apps from the Apple store.
The summary said
Apple Pulls VLC Media Player from AppStore. [...] Indeed, the iTunes page for VLC media player stopped working.
That tells anybody who knows the smallest thing about Apple that we are talking about iOS (quite apart from the fact that VLC just isn't in the Mac App Store).
Why would you want to apply legal pressure on Apple, when they are doing nothing illegal? Do you disapprove of free markets and capitalism? It would set a bad precedent to try and force companies to do things they shouldn't have to do.
Apple is interfering with free markets and capitalism, and that is arguably illegal. It is in order to defend free markets and capitalism that Apple's behavior should be curbed.
And Apple should be the last company to complain about that; without anti-trust enforcement against IBM and Microsoft, Apple wouldn't even exist.
Free markets only exist if government keeps them free. A "free market" doesn't mean that companies can do whatever they like, it means that customers have a free choice to buy and use what they want in the market.
The Galaxy Tab is a great device: portable, tons of software, fast. It works fine with 2.2, you don't need Honeycomb (but Honeycomb has dropped the dual processor requirement, so it may be coming). If you need a tablet now, that's the one to get.
If you don't need one urgently, just wait and see.
It doesn't actually say that in the summary or the linked article(s)
Right in the summary! "Indeed, the iTunes page for VLC media player stopped working."
So, in other words, Apple has never taken legal action against an individual for jailbreaking their device?
What I said was that they tried to take legal measures, which they did, for example, by making that DMCA argument official.
Should you be required to help your neighbor paint his house?
Under some circumstances, yes. But that's a bad analogy anyway. There is tons of precedent for legally requiring platform providers to open up their platforms to competitors, There is no reason at all why Apple alone should be able to do whatever they please.
Yeah, so what? They made the hardware. It's your problem if you choose to buy it and it doesn't do what you want it to.
First, Apple is achieving near monopoly status in some markets, so I people increasingly don't have a choice.
Second, the reason we talk about this is that other people become aware of the problem. The more people know about it, the more we can apply economic and legal pressure on Apple.
Umm, we're not talking about iOS here, we're talking about Mac OS, which doesn't require you to buy apps from the Apple store.
Are you blind? RTFA: "Apple Pulls VLC Media Player from AppStore". That's the iOS AppStore.
Even if we were talking about iOS, you are still free to install whatever you like on your own hardware.
Apple takes active measures preventing me from installing software on my hardware; they designed their hardware and software that way. The fact that they are too dumb to get it right doesn't change the fact that that's their intention.
As for legal measures, what are you referring to? I don't recall any legal action from Apple against people jailbreaking their devices.
Apple made official DMCA arguments against jailbreaking. Fortunately, the feds put a stop to that:
However, Apple is not required to assist you in doing so
That remains to be seen. As part of fair business practice and antitrust efforts, we can require Apple (and other vendors) to allow and support the installation of third party software. And we probably should do that.
What happened was that a prosecutor asked for some fairly basic personal data. The US legal system requires review through a judge who decided that the release of this data was justified, but mandated disclosure. Furthermore, if Twitter and the affected individuals have an opportunity to challenge the decision. That's the legal system working the way it should.
Europe has mandatory data retention of this kind of information as part of an EU directive, and many nations have gone beyond even the already serious requirements that the directive imposes. Police in many European nations can get at this data without any kind of judicial review and you never even have a chance of finding out that you have been investigated. Show me a European nation where your data would be better protected from police and prosecutors than in the US.
And anybody who thinks that what Assange did wouldn't lead to prosecution in Europe is even more naive. Merely making fun of the state can land you in jail in European nations, as can insulting politicians and churches. Release of some of the cables is likely actionable in Europe simply because it portrays people in a bad light. It's a purely political decision that European nations haven't started prosecuting Assange for these releases directly; they certainly have the laws and information to do it.
Wake up, folks. In the US, at least people complain about this stuff. Europeans just submit to their governments unquestioningly.
So, it's ok for authorities to lie, cheat, bribe, kill, torture, etc, and the very act of exposing them is a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment?
They subpoenaed some information; that's not "death or life imprisonment".
You're so fucked.. Just watch your country go down in flames
It's much worse in Europe and elsewhere, and Europeans are too stupid to even realize it. Inform yourself about the laws!
No, they aren't. They are asserting control over what they sell in their own store. You remain free to install whatever you want on your own hardware.
I'm not, since they are using technological (and, increasingly, legal) means to restrict that. Unlike Android devices, iOS doesn't have an option of installing from sources other than Apple's App Store.
Well, sleazy business tactics and misleading advertising do indeed work, no question about it. Apple isn't quite there yet, but at some point, institutions like the FTC and antitrust start investigating to protect consumers from such abuses.
If multiple reviewers failed to find methodological problems in the paper, the reviewing process failed, both individually, and institutionally.
You're viewing journals as something that is supposed to give people a record of proven and accurate results. That view is, of course, total rubbish, both in what journals are for and what they actually accomplish.
Journals are means of scientific communication, not a record of truth. Science would grind to a halt if the only thing people ever could say was proven correct.
Furthermore, if your view were how journals operated, then they are failing completely because a large fraction of scientific articles contain errors.
The purpose of a reviewer is not to determine absolute truth (which would be impossible), it is to determine whether a paper is interesting for a particular journal.
A paper doesn't need to be right to be interesting. If this paper has a serious methodological flaw that three reviewers missed, other people are likely to make that mistake as well, and the discussion and response belongs into the publication record.
The review was a spectacular failure from start to finish. Lots of people didn't do their jobs, but I have a lot more blame for the journal's review board than the reviewers themselves.
Neither you nor anybody else has yet pointed out a specific problem with the paper. Merely calling into question the qualification of the reviewers is not enough. Either put up or shut up: where are those supposed statistical errors?
What is a "spectacular failure" is the religious and unscientific approach to publications people like you take (and you're not alone). You try to achieve the unachievable, namely of turning scientific publications into gospel truth, instead of recognizing them for what they are: a means of communication, a place where discussions take place, and where it is OK to make errors.
If the statisticians at my company are any clue, misuse of p-values to conclude significance of effects is the most enraging thing that can happen to a statistician.
There are lots of ways in which people misuse p-values. However, on quick reading, I didn't see any obvious misuse here. They have large sample sizes and the effects are big enough to have been very unlikely to have occurred by chance. Care to point out where you think the misuse lies?
I also think they must have done something wrong, but someone needs to explain what specifically it is they are supposed to have done wrong.
No. I've reviewed papers. It was part of my job to locate methodological errors, and recommend rejecting the paper until those errors were fixed.
You quoted me out of context. What I was getting at in this context is: "If there is an error in the methodology or results after a paper has passed peer review, then people should respond by publishing a paper pointing those out." There is no point in getting upset at that point, nor does that mean that the reviewers didn't do their job.
Reviewers should reject papers if they can identify methodological errors; it is not the reviewer's job to guarantee that the papers they review are correct.
Of course, it's a "negative" effect of the GPL, and an intended one: you are not supposed to benefit from GPL'ed apps in the short term if doing so makes creating more GPL'ed apps difficult in the long term.
Apple and Microsoft do exactly the same thing with their business strategies and licenses.
Every store has to have rules or it'd be complete anarchy.
Yes, Apple just chose bad rules, which is why both developers and users should start avoiding it. App stores don't have to have bad rules.
There's nothing evil going on here, it's just two entities enforcing the terms of use for their properties.
Apple is asserting rights over what I can install on hardware that I own. That is wrong, and it is a threat to software development and freedom of communications.
Obviously Apple's rules work for a lot of cases since there are tons of apps
They "work" in the sense of making Apple tons of money. They don't work in the sense of having a free, competitive market, and they certainly don't work in protecting freedom of expression.
And Apple can't fix anything by modifying an agreement, as it's not their license that's in question, it's the GPL. They'd actually have to restructure how their content distribution system works.
Nonsense. The problem is a licensing problem, not a content distribution problem. If Apple would fix their licenses, the problem would go away, even if their app store couldn't actually implement the more permissilve licenses.
Not really ironic. Apple hasn't changed much: what they are doing today is not so different from what they were doing back then: there was a threat that they were going to dominate that market with technology they themselves just copied from others and were getting more and more litigious about. And they tried to control tightly the market for hardware and software for their machines.
The "1984" commercial was probably based on the idea that the best defense is a good offense.
It's not "instead". Rather, corporations and government cooperate more and more closely. It's called "fascism", and it's how the Nazi state functioned.
I looked at the paper. I don't believe the conclusions. But they seem to present all the necessary data so that you can do your own statistical analyses, and they offer to give you the software.
I don't see any reason for people to get "outraged" over this. Publication in a peer reviewed journal is not a guarantee of correctness (in fact, probably the majority of peer reviewed publications contain significant errors), it merely means that the paper meets basic scientific standards in terms of approach and analysis.
If there is an error in the methodology or results, then people should respond by publishing a paper pointing those out. That way, everybody can benefit from the discussion. So, that's where all those people who are "outraged" should channel their energy.
They all support ssh and support it well (also VNC and tons of other admin tools). Just pick one with a keyboard you like.
Having a trackball or optical sensor is also useful, in particular if you want to run VNC and other remote graphical applications, since you need a mouse for those (touch is usually used for pan and zoom).
Is it reasonable to suspect people of murder just because they have in the past searched for,
No, but it is reasonable to consider it as evidence. Let's say 10% of all people have similar search histories randomly but 90% of all people who commit such a murder do. You couldn't convict based on such evidence because the overwhelming number of people you'd convict would be innocent. But if you're already 95% sure that someone committed the crime, this does give you a bit of extra confidence.
So, 1:20 people would be falsely convicted if you just use the other evidence, but only 1:10 of those would also randomly have these search terms in their history, meaning only 1:200 would be falsely convicted after you also take into account the search history. (You can work out the other cases yourself.)
The unfortunate thing is that judges and juries probably don't do the math; even 1:200 may be too low for a conviction for murder (that's not "beyond a reasonable doubt"), in particular since the actual probabilities are hard to estimate.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure what is "improper" about the current support. Almost all apps scale up nicely to the large screen on the Galaxy Tab and there are tons of on-screen keyboards that work well on the big screen. For web browsing, Kindle, PDF viewing, and viewing and editing Office docs, the bigger screen is god-sent.
I'm sure Android 3.0 will have some nice features, but you don't need it for a good tablet experience.
You said:
The summary said
That tells anybody who knows the smallest thing about Apple that we are talking about iOS (quite apart from the fact that VLC just isn't in the Mac App Store).
Why would you want to apply legal pressure on Apple, when they are doing nothing illegal? Do you disapprove of free markets and capitalism? It would set a bad precedent to try and force companies to do things they shouldn't have to do.
Apple is interfering with free markets and capitalism, and that is arguably illegal. It is in order to defend free markets and capitalism that Apple's behavior should be curbed.
And Apple should be the last company to complain about that; without anti-trust enforcement against IBM and Microsoft, Apple wouldn't even exist.
Free markets only exist if government keeps them free. A "free market" doesn't mean that companies can do whatever they like, it means that customers have a free choice to buy and use what they want in the market.
The Galaxy Tab is a great device: portable, tons of software, fast. It works fine with 2.2, you don't need Honeycomb (but Honeycomb has dropped the dual processor requirement, so it may be coming). If you need a tablet now, that's the one to get.
If you don't need one urgently, just wait and see.
It doesn't actually say that in the summary or the linked article(s)
Right in the summary! "Indeed, the iTunes page for VLC media player stopped working."
So, in other words, Apple has never taken legal action against an individual for jailbreaking their device?
What I said was that they tried to take legal measures, which they did, for example, by making that DMCA argument official.
Should you be required to help your neighbor paint his house?
Under some circumstances, yes. But that's a bad analogy anyway. There is tons of precedent for legally requiring platform providers to open up their platforms to competitors, There is no reason at all why Apple alone should be able to do whatever they please.
Yeah, so what? They made the hardware. It's your problem if you choose to buy it and it doesn't do what you want it to.
First, Apple is achieving near monopoly status in some markets, so I people increasingly don't have a choice.
Second, the reason we talk about this is that other people become aware of the problem. The more people know about it, the more we can apply economic and legal pressure on Apple.
Umm, we're not talking about iOS here, we're talking about Mac OS, which doesn't require you to buy apps from the Apple store.
Are you blind? RTFA: "Apple Pulls VLC Media Player from AppStore". That's the iOS AppStore.
Even if we were talking about iOS, you are still free to install whatever you like on your own hardware.
Apple takes active measures preventing me from installing software on my hardware; they designed their hardware and software that way. The fact that they are too dumb to get it right doesn't change the fact that that's their intention.
As for legal measures, what are you referring to? I don't recall any legal action from Apple against people jailbreaking their devices.
Apple made official DMCA arguments against jailbreaking. Fortunately, the feds put a stop to that:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jailbreaking/
However, Apple is not required to assist you in doing so
That remains to be seen. As part of fair business practice and antitrust efforts, we can require Apple (and other vendors) to allow and support the installation of third party software. And we probably should do that.
What happened was that a prosecutor asked for some fairly basic personal data. The US legal system requires review through a judge who decided that the release of this data was justified, but mandated disclosure. Furthermore, if Twitter and the affected individuals have an opportunity to challenge the decision. That's the legal system working the way it should.
Europe has mandatory data retention of this kind of information as part of an EU directive, and many nations have gone beyond even the already serious requirements that the directive imposes. Police in many European nations can get at this data without any kind of judicial review and you never even have a chance of finding out that you have been investigated. Show me a European nation where your data would be better protected from police and prosecutors than in the US.
And anybody who thinks that what Assange did wouldn't lead to prosecution in Europe is even more naive. Merely making fun of the state can land you in jail in European nations, as can insulting politicians and churches. Release of some of the cables is likely actionable in Europe simply because it portrays people in a bad light. It's a purely political decision that European nations haven't started prosecuting Assange for these releases directly; they certainly have the laws and information to do it.
Wake up, folks. In the US, at least people complain about this stuff. Europeans just submit to their governments unquestioningly.
So, it's ok for authorities to lie, cheat, bribe, kill, torture, etc, and the very act of exposing them is a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment?
They subpoenaed some information; that's not "death or life imprisonment".
You're so fucked.. Just watch your country go down in flames
It's much worse in Europe and elsewhere, and Europeans are too stupid to even realize it. Inform yourself about the laws!
No, they aren't. They are asserting control over what they sell in their own store. You remain free to install whatever you want on your own hardware.
I'm not, since they are using technological (and, increasingly, legal) means to restrict that. Unlike Android devices, iOS doesn't have an option of installing from sources other than Apple's App Store.
Well, sleazy business tactics and misleading advertising do indeed work, no question about it. Apple isn't quite there yet, but at some point, institutions like the FTC and antitrust start investigating to protect consumers from such abuses.
If multiple reviewers failed to find methodological problems in the paper, the reviewing process failed, both individually, and institutionally.
You're viewing journals as something that is supposed to give people a record of proven and accurate results. That view is, of course, total rubbish, both in what journals are for and what they actually accomplish.
Journals are means of scientific communication, not a record of truth. Science would grind to a halt if the only thing people ever could say was proven correct.
Furthermore, if your view were how journals operated, then they are failing completely because a large fraction of scientific articles contain errors.
The purpose of a reviewer is not to determine absolute truth (which would be impossible), it is to determine whether a paper is interesting for a particular journal.
A paper doesn't need to be right to be interesting. If this paper has a serious methodological flaw that three reviewers missed, other people are likely to make that mistake as well, and the discussion and response belongs into the publication record.
The review was a spectacular failure from start to finish. Lots of people didn't do their jobs, but I have a lot more blame for the journal's review board than the reviewers themselves.
Neither you nor anybody else has yet pointed out a specific problem with the paper. Merely calling into question the qualification of the reviewers is not enough. Either put up or shut up: where are those supposed statistical errors?
What is a "spectacular failure" is the religious and unscientific approach to publications people like you take (and you're not alone). You try to achieve the unachievable, namely of turning scientific publications into gospel truth, instead of recognizing them for what they are: a means of communication, a place where discussions take place, and where it is OK to make errors.
It was a brilliant marketing move that is still paying off today.
That's roughly what I said.
staring left-wing ideologues to ingratiate Apple to teachers unions, artists, college-town hipsters, and trustafarians.
Well, here you out yourself as just another libertarian zombie. Your mind is even more closed than the people you criticize.
Yeah, kind of like every peaceful and fun-loving civilization has gotten destroyed in human history. What else is new.
If the statisticians at my company are any clue, misuse of p-values to conclude significance of effects is the most enraging thing that can happen to a statistician.
There are lots of ways in which people misuse p-values. However, on quick reading, I didn't see any obvious misuse here. They have large sample sizes and the effects are big enough to have been very unlikely to have occurred by chance. Care to point out where you think the misuse lies?
I also think they must have done something wrong, but someone needs to explain what specifically it is they are supposed to have done wrong.
No. I've reviewed papers. It was part of my job to locate methodological errors, and recommend rejecting the paper until those errors were fixed.
You quoted me out of context. What I was getting at in this context is: "If there is an error in the methodology or results after a paper has passed peer review, then people should respond by publishing a paper pointing those out." There is no point in getting upset at that point, nor does that mean that the reviewers didn't do their job.
Reviewers should reject papers if they can identify methodological errors; it is not the reviewer's job to guarantee that the papers they review are correct.
Are you comparing an unsubsidized iPhone to a subsidized Android or something?
No, that's what you're doing:
Those are subsidized prices. Unsubsidized, those phones are much more expensive. You can get unsubsidized Android devices for less than that.
You have no fucking clue--Apple has a huge hardware and software design team and they *donate* a ton of code to FOSS.
They do have large design teams, they just don't have any research.
Apple releases some stuff under FOSS, but for the most part not stuff that's useful to anybody outside Apple developers.
Of course, it's a "negative" effect of the GPL, and an intended one: you are not supposed to benefit from GPL'ed apps in the short term if doing so makes creating more GPL'ed apps difficult in the long term.
Apple and Microsoft do exactly the same thing with their business strategies and licenses.
Every store has to have rules or it'd be complete anarchy.
Yes, Apple just chose bad rules, which is why both developers and users should start avoiding it. App stores don't have to have bad rules.
There's nothing evil going on here, it's just two entities enforcing the terms of use for their properties.
Apple is asserting rights over what I can install on hardware that I own. That is wrong, and it is a threat to software development and freedom of communications.
Obviously Apple's rules work for a lot of cases since there are tons of apps
They "work" in the sense of making Apple tons of money. They don't work in the sense of having a free, competitive market, and they certainly don't work in protecting freedom of expression.
And Apple can't fix anything by modifying an agreement, as it's not their license that's in question, it's the GPL. They'd actually have to restructure how their content distribution system works.
Nonsense. The problem is a licensing problem, not a content distribution problem. If Apple would fix their licenses, the problem would go away, even if their app store couldn't actually implement the more permissilve licenses.
Not really ironic. Apple hasn't changed much: what they are doing today is not so different from what they were doing back then: there was a threat that they were going to dominate that market with technology they themselves just copied from others and were getting more and more litigious about. And they tried to control tightly the market for hardware and software for their machines.
The "1984" commercial was probably based on the idea that the best defense is a good offense.
It's not "instead". Rather, corporations and government cooperate more and more closely. It's called "fascism", and it's how the Nazi state functioned.
I looked at the paper. I don't believe the conclusions. But they seem to present all the necessary data so that you can do your own statistical analyses, and they offer to give you the software.
I don't see any reason for people to get "outraged" over this. Publication in a peer reviewed journal is not a guarantee of correctness (in fact, probably the majority of peer reviewed publications contain significant errors), it merely means that the paper meets basic scientific standards in terms of approach and analysis.
If there is an error in the methodology or results, then people should respond by publishing a paper pointing those out. That way, everybody can benefit from the discussion. So, that's where all those people who are "outraged" should channel their energy.
They all support ssh and support it well (also VNC and tons of other admin tools). Just pick one with a keyboard you like.
Having a trackball or optical sensor is also useful, in particular if you want to run VNC and other remote graphical applications, since you need a mouse for those (touch is usually used for pan and zoom).
I use ConnectBot. It can run in the background and provide tunnels for just about anything you want.
You can even set the proxy of your 3G access point to the local endpoint of an ssh tunnel.
Is it reasonable to suspect people of murder just because they have in the past searched for,
No, but it is reasonable to consider it as evidence. Let's say 10% of all people have similar search histories randomly but 90% of all people who commit such a murder do. You couldn't convict based on such evidence because the overwhelming number of people you'd convict would be innocent. But if you're already 95% sure that someone committed the crime, this does give you a bit of extra confidence.
So, 1:20 people would be falsely convicted if you just use the other evidence, but only 1:10 of those would also randomly have these search terms in their history, meaning only 1:200 would be falsely convicted after you also take into account the search history. (You can work out the other cases yourself.)
The unfortunate thing is that judges and juries probably don't do the math; even 1:200 may be too low for a conviction for murder (that's not "beyond a reasonable doubt"), in particular since the actual probabilities are hard to estimate.