It's sort of a malfunction, in that the algorithms malfunctioned, but the exchanges did not experience any malfunction. Typically if your algorithm malfunctions, tough -- you lose.
You know, after Starcraft II I actually forgot that most games didn't release on the Mac until months later. I've noticed that the third suggestion on Google for "civ 5" is "civ 5 mac", beating out even "civ 5 torrent". Just sayin'.
Most atheists in real life don't have some "belief" that there is no God. What most of us believe is that belief in God is detrimental. Agnostics seem to think it doesn't matter whether someone believes in God or not. This is untrue.
You don't get anywhere by suing companies that decide not to use your product. The Google situation is not at all similar -- the allegation is that Google PREVENTED Motorola from using Skyhook's product.
I see a lot of dumb comments above about how Google shouldn't be forced to integrate Skyhook's location services, but this isn't about Google integrating Skyhook's location services. This is about Motorola choosing to use Skyhook on Android, and Google refusing to allow it.
That's funny, I just found a new rule that good Slashdot commenters are separated from the bad by their ability to see the world as shades of grey and fine distinctions, rather than dumping everything into buckets of "good" and "bad".
Sort of funny to see someone write about how the "shield law" is "much needed" and complain that it won't apply to everyone in the same paragraph. The whole point of a "shield law" is to provide special rights for a limited set of people.
For regular folks, if the cops have reason to believe that you know something about a crime, you'll get subpoenaed and required to testify, under penalty of perjury, potentially against your will. Journalists seem to think they ought to be exempt from the regular laws.
You can't give everyone an exemption or they'll claim they were "reporting" when they drunkenly bragged that they knew who killed Mr. Body. That's the problem with the shield law idea.
No, the items you keep quoting are obviously merely members of a long list of example techniques for evaluating the likelihood that a phone has been stolen.
There's no conspiracy theory here. Imagine that you were a phone. Someone enters the wrong unlock password a dozen times? Maybe your owner forgot it. You haven't been back to your home a couple days? Maybe your owner is on vacation. But when, IN ADDITION to all that, someone starts trying to unlock you, you'd have a pretty good notion that you're about to be hawked on ebay.
Well, I have one, and I don't use a case. I'm not sure if I can tell you how bad the problem really is, since I don't make many phone calls, and even though I do use my left hand when I do, my natural grip doesn't touch the weak spot.
Using data, it seems like it's slower when I touch the weak spot, so I don't do that. It's not my natural grip when using it for Web browsing either. And usually I'm using wi-fi anyway, in which case it doesn't seem to matter at all.
Not sure if that answers your question. I think it depends a lot on the user.
Because it's become political. It's the new nationalism, now. Later we'll have a war between the iNation Party and the Android People's Alliance.
More seriously, it's just the way the brain works. Once you disagree with some claim of fact, those making it seem disagreeable. Like how the media has been calling certain government figures "czars" for years, but then someone from the other party gets elected and some people start to think that "czar" means the government is taking over the country.
Look, now you're just making stuff up. Apple doesn't consider the devices defective and isn't performing warranty service, but they still accept returns.
Curious, why do you think rooting an iPhone voids the warranty, and rooting an Android device doesn't? While I'm sure there are some things you can do on Android without having to hack it, it seems like hacking is really popular so people must be dissatisfied with some of the restrictions.
I think that the "jailbreaking voids your warranty" stuff is Internet folklore for the most part. Unless you actually brick the device you can always do a restore anyway, and then how would they know it was once rooted?
It's all speculation at this point. But the best speculation possible is based on reports that the iPhone 4 was designed to look for towers with lower congestion, even if they might have a weaker signal. If this is the case (and I don't personally know) it's possible that this feature is simply too aggressive, or not aggressive enough about switching back to the strong tower when attenuation occurs.
Speculation, as I said. I don't think anyone really knows for sure.
What do you think about Apple's significant efforts to improve their sandboxed environment (Safari)?
Basically I think the way they are going is, go ahead and tinker, write apps without approval -- but to keep the computing environment working and safe, there's a boundary line. You want access to system functions, the Obj-C environment, etc you have to be approved.
Lots of talk above about Google Voice, but it's still available on the iPhone, only via an HTML/JavaScript interface rather than a native one. Of course that reduces functionality, but it's not quite the same thing as banning the service altogether.
We can debate the merits of the walled garden, though I don't understand those above who can't see any possible advantages at all. But in the midst of that debate we can't pretend that Safari as a platform doesn't exist, or pretend that people aren't using it, or pretend that Apple's serious work to extend and improve the open platform aren't happening.
Can you play files encoded with WebM on your phone? No, because Jobs doesn't want you to. Can you run the native version of Google Voice? Nah. REJECTED.
Just because you are in denial of the control that Apple has on the iPhone doesn't mean that there is no control or domination. It's probably more akin to some kind of Stockholm syndrome.
Please, let's not claim that either of us is addled by some psychiatric disease -- I think that's a weak argument. I'm not in denial of the "control". I just don't think the actual control exercised matters as much to end-users as it does to you.
I don't use much video on my phone, but I think what's important is that neither the content, nor the providers of video is restricted -- note the Netflix app among many others. Why is the format the most important thing? Video decoding is still a pretty intensive activity, likely to require hardware acceleration, so in a practical sense the video formats on a portable device are going to be limited regardless.
Err, no one is asking to abolish the App store. Just that there is a button somewhere deep down hidden which can activate software installs bypassing the App store. You can still have all the benefits you listed in this scenario.
It's not going to be a "deep down hidden" setting when Google/Sun/Microsoft do whatever they can to get people to set it, so that they can cover up your app launcher with the Google Toolbar, and replace your media player with Windows Media Player, etc. You're back to the Windows PC scenario where a user wants to watch some video of a skateboarding dog and ends up replacing their Web browser.
If you live in a world without people who have useless System Tray icons a mile long, consider yourself lucky. But please don't pretend that world doesn't exist, or that it isn't a problem.
Apple doesn't, in any actual fact, dominate how I use my iPhone, you know. On my un-jailbroken device there are no restrictions on which Web sites I can visit; the built-in Mail app allows the use of any IMAP/POP/Exchange account; the Phone app allows me to call anyone; the SMS app allows me to send any text to anyone. As a communications tool my use of the iPhone is dominated by those I choose to communicate with, really. And if I want to write software for my own iPhone, I can do so without encountering the App Store approval process (ad-hoc distribution).
You're talking about developer freedom, and it's true that developers are heavily restricted on the iPhone (ad-hoc distribution is limited to 100 users). It's not really clear that this "sucks" for users though. For one thing, people have seemed satisfied with devices and services that are completely closed (cable/satellite TV, effectively) as well as platforms that are way more restrictive than Apple's (like all video game consoles from 1985 to the present).
Let's step back a second. Beyond command-line junkies like you and I, the 1995-2005 period in computing history was dominated by two factors: the massive rise of computing in general, and the massive gap between potential of software and the end-user reality. Everyone here knows that software, with its incredible theoretical flexibility, can do so many things -- yet actual end-users seem to use their computers as little more than sophisticated typewriters! If you weren't frustrated by the state of end-user computing in 2005 you never watched someone who doesn't read Slashdot try to perform any task outside the "box" of MS Office.
Apple has seized on a particular paradigm of human-computer interaction designed to address this gap, and I think it has been successful. End-users on the iPhone/iPad are much more comfortable than PC users in making use of a diverse array of applications. Yes, these apps are all approved by Apple, but I personally believe that part of the reason users are comfortable with the App Store is the simple fact that downloading apps will not, generally speaking, trash their device, take it over, or do something unexpected. Compare this to the open PC where you have huge amounts of malware and where even legitimate applications act in anti-user ways (like Sun's JVM which tries to install the Yahoo! toolbar). No surprise that other mobile platforms have introduced app stores of their own.
In this environment claiming that Apple "dominates" usage of iOS or that the experience simply "sucks" doesn't seem that sophisticated to me.
Flash is mostly used for advertising -- and for a very, very high value of mostly. "Mostly" in the sense that nearly every page loaded by an average user has a Flash ad on it.
The multitude of crappy Flash games (with a handful of good ones) is not much of a draw when the App Store has its own multitude of crappy games (and a handful of good ones) that are designed to work with a touch interface.
It's odd that Flash is so heavily defended on Slashdot when its primary compelling end-user purpose (other than advertising, of course) is to act as a glorified DRM provider for video.
Adobe's nothing more than a glorified DRM provider when it comes to video. Google controls YouTube and is quite capable of making their own content partnerships. Adobe's presence is marketing. (And nobody wants to watch porn on their living room TV anymore).
Simply put, when you make a joke, you take the risk that people won't find your joke to be all that funny. If you're afraid of rejection, comedy is not for you.
I understand the joke, but how does it make sense? Against the pound, the dollar is up -- well above where it was in 2006 for instance. The dollar is also holding up well against the euro (though naturally down against the ever-deflating yen). Are "devalued dollar" jokes just always funny regardless of the situation?
Slashdot Mirror
It's sort of a malfunction, in that the algorithms malfunctioned, but the exchanges did not experience any malfunction. Typically if your algorithm malfunctions, tough -- you lose.
They only busted trades for PR reasons.
You know, after Starcraft II I actually forgot that most games didn't release on the Mac until months later. I've noticed that the third suggestion on Google for "civ 5" is "civ 5 mac", beating out even "civ 5 torrent". Just sayin'.
Most atheists in real life don't have some "belief" that there is no God. What most of us believe is that belief in God is detrimental. Agnostics seem to think it doesn't matter whether someone believes in God or not. This is untrue.
You don't get anywhere by suing companies that decide not to use your product. The Google situation is not at all similar -- the allegation is that Google PREVENTED Motorola from using Skyhook's product.
I see a lot of dumb comments above about how Google shouldn't be forced to integrate Skyhook's location services, but this isn't about Google integrating Skyhook's location services. This is about Motorola choosing to use Skyhook on Android, and Google refusing to allow it.
That's funny, I just found a new rule that good Slashdot commenters are separated from the bad by their ability to see the world as shades of grey and fine distinctions, rather than dumping everything into buckets of "good" and "bad".
Also, the ending was perfect.
Sort of funny to see someone write about how the "shield law" is "much needed" and complain that it won't apply to everyone in the same paragraph. The whole point of a "shield law" is to provide special rights for a limited set of people.
For regular folks, if the cops have reason to believe that you know something about a crime, you'll get subpoenaed and required to testify, under penalty of perjury, potentially against your will. Journalists seem to think they ought to be exempt from the regular laws.
You can't give everyone an exemption or they'll claim they were "reporting" when they drunkenly bragged that they knew who killed Mr. Body. That's the problem with the shield law idea.
The Apple TV hasn't ever done 1080p. Anyone who cares already knows that. And very few people have the bandwidth to stream 1080p anyway, so who cares?
Yeah, 2008 sure does want that 5750 bad, but does she want it badly enough to wait until late 2009?
But tell me, what in the world do those other techniques have to do with detecting a jailbreak?
No, the items you keep quoting are obviously merely members of a long list of example techniques for evaluating the likelihood that a phone has been stolen.
There's no conspiracy theory here. Imagine that you were a phone. Someone enters the wrong unlock password a dozen times? Maybe your owner forgot it. You haven't been back to your home a couple days? Maybe your owner is on vacation. But when, IN ADDITION to all that, someone starts trying to unlock you, you'd have a pretty good notion that you're about to be hawked on ebay.
Well, I have one, and I don't use a case. I'm not sure if I can tell you how bad the problem really is, since I don't make many phone calls, and even though I do use my left hand when I do, my natural grip doesn't touch the weak spot.
Using data, it seems like it's slower when I touch the weak spot, so I don't do that. It's not my natural grip when using it for Web browsing either. And usually I'm using wi-fi anyway, in which case it doesn't seem to matter at all.
Not sure if that answers your question. I think it depends a lot on the user.
Because it's become political. It's the new nationalism, now. Later we'll have a war between the iNation Party and the Android People's Alliance.
More seriously, it's just the way the brain works. Once you disagree with some claim of fact, those making it seem disagreeable. Like how the media has been calling certain government figures "czars" for years, but then someone from the other party gets elected and some people start to think that "czar" means the government is taking over the country.
Look, now you're just making stuff up. Apple doesn't consider the devices defective and isn't performing warranty service, but they still accept returns.
Curious, why do you think rooting an iPhone voids the warranty, and rooting an Android device doesn't? While I'm sure there are some things you can do on Android without having to hack it, it seems like hacking is really popular so people must be dissatisfied with some of the restrictions.
I think that the "jailbreaking voids your warranty" stuff is Internet folklore for the most part. Unless you actually brick the device you can always do a restore anyway, and then how would they know it was once rooted?
It's all speculation at this point. But the best speculation possible is based on reports that the iPhone 4 was designed to look for towers with lower congestion, even if they might have a weaker signal. If this is the case (and I don't personally know) it's possible that this feature is simply too aggressive, or not aggressive enough about switching back to the strong tower when attenuation occurs.
Speculation, as I said. I don't think anyone really knows for sure.
What do you think about Apple's significant efforts to improve their sandboxed environment (Safari)?
Basically I think the way they are going is, go ahead and tinker, write apps without approval -- but to keep the computing environment working and safe, there's a boundary line. You want access to system functions, the Obj-C environment, etc you have to be approved.
Lots of talk above about Google Voice, but it's still available on the iPhone, only via an HTML/JavaScript interface rather than a native one. Of course that reduces functionality, but it's not quite the same thing as banning the service altogether.
We can debate the merits of the walled garden, though I don't understand those above who can't see any possible advantages at all. But in the midst of that debate we can't pretend that Safari as a platform doesn't exist, or pretend that people aren't using it, or pretend that Apple's serious work to extend and improve the open platform aren't happening.
Dunno about flamebait, but it sure is dumb. iOS 4's multitasking uses a pre-emptive scheduler (as it has since iPhone OS 1.0).
Talking about cooperative multitasking this way makes it pretty clear that you don't know what it means.
Can you play files encoded with WebM on your phone? No, because Jobs doesn't want you to. Can you run the native version of Google Voice? Nah. REJECTED.
Just because you are in denial of the control that Apple has on the iPhone doesn't mean that there is no control or domination. It's probably more akin to some kind of Stockholm syndrome.
Please, let's not claim that either of us is addled by some psychiatric disease -- I think that's a weak argument. I'm not in denial of the "control". I just don't think the actual control exercised matters as much to end-users as it does to you.
I don't use much video on my phone, but I think what's important is that neither the content, nor the providers of video is restricted -- note the Netflix app among many others. Why is the format the most important thing? Video decoding is still a pretty intensive activity, likely to require hardware acceleration, so in a practical sense the video formats on a portable device are going to be limited regardless.
Err, no one is asking to abolish the App store. Just that there is a button somewhere deep down hidden which can activate software installs bypassing the App store. You can still have all the benefits you listed in this scenario.
It's not going to be a "deep down hidden" setting when Google/Sun/Microsoft do whatever they can to get people to set it, so that they can cover up your app launcher with the Google Toolbar, and replace your media player with Windows Media Player, etc. You're back to the Windows PC scenario where a user wants to watch some video of a skateboarding dog and ends up replacing their Web browser.
If you live in a world without people who have useless System Tray icons a mile long, consider yourself lucky. But please don't pretend that world doesn't exist, or that it isn't a problem.
Sophistication and priorities? Hmm.
Apple doesn't, in any actual fact, dominate how I use my iPhone, you know. On my un-jailbroken device there are no restrictions on which Web sites I can visit; the built-in Mail app allows the use of any IMAP/POP/Exchange account; the Phone app allows me to call anyone; the SMS app allows me to send any text to anyone. As a communications tool my use of the iPhone is dominated by those I choose to communicate with, really. And if I want to write software for my own iPhone, I can do so without encountering the App Store approval process (ad-hoc distribution).
You're talking about developer freedom, and it's true that developers are heavily restricted on the iPhone (ad-hoc distribution is limited to 100 users). It's not really clear that this "sucks" for users though. For one thing, people have seemed satisfied with devices and services that are completely closed (cable/satellite TV, effectively) as well as platforms that are way more restrictive than Apple's (like all video game consoles from 1985 to the present).
Let's step back a second. Beyond command-line junkies like you and I, the 1995-2005 period in computing history was dominated by two factors: the massive rise of computing in general, and the massive gap between potential of software and the end-user reality. Everyone here knows that software, with its incredible theoretical flexibility, can do so many things -- yet actual end-users seem to use their computers as little more than sophisticated typewriters! If you weren't frustrated by the state of end-user computing in 2005 you never watched someone who doesn't read Slashdot try to perform any task outside the "box" of MS Office.
Apple has seized on a particular paradigm of human-computer interaction designed to address this gap, and I think it has been successful. End-users on the iPhone/iPad are much more comfortable than PC users in making use of a diverse array of applications. Yes, these apps are all approved by Apple, but I personally believe that part of the reason users are comfortable with the App Store is the simple fact that downloading apps will not, generally speaking, trash their device, take it over, or do something unexpected. Compare this to the open PC where you have huge amounts of malware and where even legitimate applications act in anti-user ways (like Sun's JVM which tries to install the Yahoo! toolbar). No surprise that other mobile platforms have introduced app stores of their own.
In this environment claiming that Apple "dominates" usage of iOS or that the experience simply "sucks" doesn't seem that sophisticated to me.
Flash is mostly used for advertising -- and for a very, very high value of mostly. "Mostly" in the sense that nearly every page loaded by an average user has a Flash ad on it.
The multitude of crappy Flash games (with a handful of good ones) is not much of a draw when the App Store has its own multitude of crappy games (and a handful of good ones) that are designed to work with a touch interface.
It's odd that Flash is so heavily defended on Slashdot when its primary compelling end-user purpose (other than advertising, of course) is to act as a glorified DRM provider for video.
Can't a text file be as complicated or simple as it is?
Adobe's nothing more than a glorified DRM provider when it comes to video. Google controls YouTube and is quite capable of making their own content partnerships. Adobe's presence is marketing. (And nobody wants to watch porn on their living room TV anymore).
Simply put, when you make a joke, you take the risk that people won't find your joke to be all that funny. If you're afraid of rejection, comedy is not for you.
Wouldn't it take a lot of fuel to de-orbit from GEO? Is that even something that could be delivered on an existing vehicle?
I understand the joke, but how does it make sense? Against the pound, the dollar is up -- well above where it was in 2006 for instance. The dollar is also holding up well against the euro (though naturally down against the ever-deflating yen). Are "devalued dollar" jokes just always funny regardless of the situation?