Designers' input would be all right as long as they would not insist that their vision is the only right one and remove the functionality that was already there justifying it by "users won't get it, it's too advanced". Removing the taskbar, hiding tray (the primary function of tray is to store indicators that should be visible all the time), removing tab switching by mouse wheel, are just some of the examples. But that is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that Gnome3 developers are basically saying: this is the only way to do it. No customization, no settings. That would not be a big problem in itself if the default settings would be comfortable for majority of the users. But judging from personal experience and outcry on the forums they crewed up big time.
Well, then nobody can use linux on computers with NVidia video card and call it linux? Or broadcomm wifi chips? That is the main problem with android — we don't have open source drivers for the phones. And that is the fault of mobile phone manufacturers. As well as locked bootloaders.
As for the CIQ — it is not a part of android. It is a third-party app, so comparison with flash is quite adequate. Heh, using your own argument — not having CIQ didn't stop CyanogenMod or other roms. Heck, I'm pretty sure there are some phones with stock android, that don't have CIQ preinstalled (mostly the ones, that carriers didn't get their dirty little hands on).
Chemical weapons? You mean they found old socks and bags of beans there? AFAIK no WMDs were recovered, instead the public was fed "we haven't found them yet, but they're there, that's for sure". And a couple of specialists that dared questioning the presence of WMDs were found dead in the woods.
Facebook can forbid changing the content of the post, but if it links somewhere — they cannot forbid you to changing the content on the other end of the link, so, trust me, it's more than possible.
>>arguing that only 10 per cent of the 200 electronic messages his employees receive per day on average turn out to be useful, and that staff spend between 5-20 hours handling emails every week. 'The email is no longer the appropriate (communication) tool,' says Breton.
How is replacing email with anything else will decrease time dealing with non-important info? They spend just as much, or more dealing with information coming from other channels then. Non-relevant emails will just turn into non-relevant phonecalls and messages. If we are talking about IMs, then overhead and the need for real-time communication is a certain recipe for mistakes, miscommunications and whatnot.
Doing business over SMS Are you kidding me?
>>'If people want to talk to me, they can come and visit me, call or send me a text message. Emails cannot replace the spoken word.' Now that's a very efficient way to do business. Would they like every client to call them or come down to the office personally to get the information? Now that's a very efficient way to filter out any client, that has anything to do with their time other then waiting in line of those, who don't.
Now replacing email as a mean for communication _inside_ the organization — that might make sense. If they replace internal mailing lists with XMPP and bulleting board/collaborative software like Wave (nothing to laugh about, it's gone open source and "largest EU company" can afford further development, should they see the need for it). That will be more of a e-mail 2.0 with ability to send both well though-out messages and initiate chats should the need for a quick interaction arise.
Damn, this simply calls for bait and switch technique. 1. Post a video of a cat hugging a kitten 2. Collect a whole load of "likes" 3. Switch the video for something different entirely 4. Land a lot of people in jail for up to 15 years.
I would call failure to adapt to nowadays technology "risky" not investing in your future. But, whatever, the more absurd their claims will get, the faster copyright law is subject to change.
Your idea is flawed for one simple reason: as soon as the content can be played — it can be copied. Hardware locks and TPM hardware can make it really difficult, but still, there is no way to stop people from copying and sharing. Humans are social animals and and such they have an intrinsic need to find and share information. What RIAA and the likes of them try to do — trying to change the human nature so that a very small percentage of population can profit (the RIAA, MPAA and their publishing conglomerate masters). With new technologies the flow of the information has become easier then ever and a weak flow has turned into a real torrent (no pun intended). Now organizations like RIAA and MPAA are trying to stand in the way and stop it. And most likely they will be washed away.
Well, if the seller does not remove his copy and the buyer get's the copy, then the seller is actually pirating music and profiting from it. Secondary market can exist and it is way better then what we have now — a lot of filesharing networks. Allowing people to resell what they rightfully bought will be a step towards the end-users and might actually decrease the numbers of those people who don't buy digital music because there is no way of recouping the cost of buying it in the first place.
Somehow I doubt that. The point is that people pay for that bandwidth. If your provider fails to provide what people pay for — then he is to blame. Not people using what they bought from him. Imagine if phone companies handled calls the same way they handle data: first you would pay for "unlimited 24/7 connection" and then you would discover, that you as well as sever hundred clients are all connected to one line. Should you start complaining that your calls are more important then those, of all the others or just make the provider do his job and provide the advertised service?
Freedom is not something you achieve and then enjoy for the rest of your life. It's something that you have to fight for every day of your life. So what you are talking about — is nothing new. Corporations have their interests, you have yours. They will keep trying to get what they want, so should you. The whole idea of democracy is based on balance: everybody is trying as hard as they can to get what they want and everything ends up in a compromise. If the balance is shifting somewhere — you should push harder, it's just that.
You can think of "better" when you will have "just as good". Besides, here, hardware manufacturers are to blame as they implement ASPM the way windows understands it, not the way standart sees it.
As for striving to imitate — they are fixing things so that they can work, nobody broke anything, just a workaround for the hardware that is "out there" and will be for quite some time.
Oh, the irony of me, having to run a linux on a computer because Canon won't release the drivers for windows 7 and those made for Windows XP no longer work on the newer systems So buggy drivers are linux-only problem you say?
And if we are talking about an closed source OS, that "works without a fight" (whatever that means) — spend those few hundred bucks to buy a Mac.
As for technical support — go ahead, call Microsoft support to complain about Windows not supporting any of your hardware. Guess what you'll get, an apology and a suggestion to talk to the manufacturer or buy a new one.
As for your Dell — if it came with linux and had wrong desktop resolution — return it, complain, get your money back.
First of all, the analogies are all wrong. Cigarettes are never good, guns don't turn bad all of the sudden if they are misused — the user does. As for the "but it will stay there forever" — it's the point of the internet. What you want — is to allow personal form of censorship, but that is not what the internet is all about. If you don't want something on the internet — don't put it there. Period.
Actually noone cares about the protections. Studios will either concentrate on quality and convenience of the products delivered or will continue to create more and more elaborate DRM protection schemes untill noone cares enough to buy any of the stuff.
And yet again noone bothers to read the actual shop's web-page. Given web-site is nothing but reseller in Russia that is offering to preorder the Raspberry Pi in hopes of making bulk purchases when the product is available and saving a hefty sum on transportation and thus making a quick buck and offering it cheaper to those interested in buying it. But, well, who cares.
Slashdot Mirror
NAT killed one of the basic principles of the internet and you're trying to make it look like a good thing.
Designers' input would be all right as long as they would not insist that their vision is the only right one and remove the functionality that was already there justifying it by "users won't get it, it's too advanced". Removing the taskbar, hiding tray (the primary function of tray is to store indicators that should be visible all the time), removing tab switching by mouse wheel, are just some of the examples. But that is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that Gnome3 developers are basically saying: this is the only way to do it. No customization, no settings.
That would not be a big problem in itself if the default settings would be comfortable for majority of the users. But judging from personal experience and outcry on the forums they crewed up big time.
Better to deduct it from his salary.
Well, then nobody can use linux on computers with NVidia video card and call it linux? Or broadcomm wifi chips? That is the main problem with android — we don't have open source drivers for the phones. And that is the fault of mobile phone manufacturers. As well as locked bootloaders.
As for the CIQ — it is not a part of android. It is a third-party app, so comparison with flash is quite adequate. Heh, using your own argument — not having CIQ didn't stop CyanogenMod or other roms. Heck, I'm pretty sure there are some phones with stock android, that don't have CIQ preinstalled (mostly the ones, that carriers didn't get their dirty little hands on).
Chemical weapons? You mean they found old socks and bags of beans there?
AFAIK no WMDs were recovered, instead the public was fed "we haven't found them yet, but they're there, that's for sure". And a couple of specialists that dared questioning the presence of WMDs were found dead in the woods.
Didn't they patent it? They could sue this "medic" unless he joins their church.
Just wait 'till Russia gets a say in this.
Facebook can forbid changing the content of the post, but if it links somewhere — they cannot forbid you to changing the content on the other end of the link, so, trust me, it's more than possible.
Who said it was? To prevent things like this you have to take the battery out. Oh, wait
Then we will just have to wait for one of those mysterious self-combustions on the plane. Then people will be prohibited by TSA on planes as well.
>>arguing that only 10 per cent of the 200 electronic messages his employees receive per day on average turn out to be useful, and that staff spend between 5-20 hours handling emails every week. 'The email is no longer the appropriate (communication) tool,' says Breton.
How is replacing email with anything else will decrease time dealing with non-important info? They spend just as much, or more dealing with information coming from other channels then. Non-relevant emails will just turn into non-relevant phonecalls and messages. If we are talking about IMs, then overhead and the need for real-time communication is a certain recipe for mistakes, miscommunications and whatnot.
Doing business over SMS Are you kidding me?
>>'If people want to talk to me, they can come and visit me, call or send me a text message. Emails cannot replace the spoken word.'
Now that's a very efficient way to do business. Would they like every client to call them or come down to the office personally to get the information? Now that's a very efficient way to filter out any client, that has anything to do with their time other then waiting in line of those, who don't.
Now replacing email as a mean for communication _inside_ the organization — that might make sense. If they replace internal mailing lists with XMPP and bulleting board/collaborative software like Wave (nothing to laugh about, it's gone open source and "largest EU company" can afford further development, should they see the need for it). That will be more of a e-mail 2.0 with ability to send both well though-out messages and initiate chats should the need for a quick interaction arise.
Damn, this simply calls for bait and switch technique.
1. Post a video of a cat hugging a kitten
2. Collect a whole load of "likes"
3. Switch the video for something different entirely
4. Land a lot of people in jail for up to 15 years.
I would call failure to adapt to nowadays technology "risky" not investing in your future. But, whatever, the more absurd their claims will get, the faster copyright law is subject to change.
Now that I think of it, the government own quite a number of computers
Your idea is flawed for one simple reason: as soon as the content can be played — it can be copied. Hardware locks and TPM hardware can make it really difficult, but still, there is no way to stop people from copying and sharing. Humans are social animals and and such they have an intrinsic need to find and share information. What RIAA and the likes of them try to do — trying to change the human nature so that a very small percentage of population can profit (the RIAA, MPAA and their publishing conglomerate masters).
With new technologies the flow of the information has become easier then ever and a weak flow has turned into a real torrent (no pun intended). Now organizations like RIAA and MPAA are trying to stand in the way and stop it. And most likely they will be washed away.
Well, if the seller does not remove his copy and the buyer get's the copy, then the seller is actually pirating music and profiting from it. Secondary market can exist and it is way better then what we have now — a lot of filesharing networks. Allowing people to resell what they rightfully bought will be a step towards the end-users and might actually decrease the numbers of those people who don't buy digital music because there is no way of recouping the cost of buying it in the first place.
Somehow I doubt that. The point is that people pay for that bandwidth. If your provider fails to provide what people pay for — then he is to blame. Not people using what they bought from him.
Imagine if phone companies handled calls the same way they handle data: first you would pay for "unlimited 24/7 connection" and then you would discover, that you as well as sever hundred clients are all connected to one line. Should you start complaining that your calls are more important then those, of all the others or just make the provider do his job and provide the advertised service?
Is "but we're still better off than a tribe in civil-war torn African country" really passes for an argument this days?
Freedom is not something you achieve and then enjoy for the rest of your life. It's something that you have to fight for every day of your life. So what you are talking about — is nothing new. Corporations have their interests, you have yours. They will keep trying to get what they want, so should you. The whole idea of democracy is based on balance: everybody is trying as hard as they can to get what they want and everything ends up in a compromise. If the balance is shifting somewhere — you should push harder, it's just that.
And fuel fumes case an explosion if an open flame or an electrical sparc is present. What's your point?
You can think of "better" when you will have "just as good". Besides, here, hardware manufacturers are to blame as they implement ASPM the way windows understands it, not the way standart sees it.
As for striving to imitate — they are fixing things so that they can work, nobody broke anything, just a workaround for the hardware that is "out there" and will be for quite some time.
Oh, the irony of me, having to run a linux on a computer because Canon won't release the drivers for windows 7 and those made for Windows XP no longer work on the newer systems So buggy drivers are linux-only problem you say?
And if we are talking about an closed source OS, that "works without a fight" (whatever that means) — spend those few hundred bucks to buy a Mac.
As for technical support — go ahead, call Microsoft support to complain about Windows not supporting any of your hardware. Guess what you'll get, an apology and a suggestion to talk to the manufacturer or buy a new one.
As for your Dell — if it came with linux and had wrong desktop resolution — return it, complain, get your money back.
First of all, the analogies are all wrong. Cigarettes are never good, guns don't turn bad all of the sudden if they are misused — the user does. As for the "but it will stay there forever" — it's the point of the internet. What you want — is to allow personal form of censorship, but that is not what the internet is all about. If you don't want something on the internet — don't put it there. Period.
Actually noone cares about the protections. Studios will either concentrate on quality and convenience of the products delivered or will continue to create more and more elaborate DRM protection schemes untill noone cares enough to buy any of the stuff.
And yet again noone bothers to read the actual shop's web-page. Given web-site is nothing but reseller in Russia that is offering to preorder the Raspberry Pi in hopes of making bulk purchases when the product is available and saving a hefty sum on transportation and thus making a quick buck and offering it cheaper to those interested in buying it. But, well, who cares.