Android supporters constantly claim that these kinds of people exist, yet they are never seen. Are they some kind of bogeyman invented to have something to mock? Real Apple fans are even bitchier than Android fans when it comes to criticizing Apple, as any visit to an Apple forum will prove. It seems Android has become a rallying point for two kinds of users--budget buyers not interested in phone quality and cross-armed, spec-obsessed techies who hate things that are popular.
Do you actually know any of the people you and the grandparent poster are describing, or are you guys making them up for purposes of trolling? The majority of iPhone users don't even know or care what size the screen is.
A government's environmental program fails? I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked. It's almost as if governments are just as inefficient and corrupt as the companies they're supposed to be regulating--except that they get paid regardless due to taxes.
Not clear on the reason for the negative attitude.
What micromanagement? You double click the.deb or.rpm, it asks if you want to install it, and that's it.
You suggested decompressing and double-clicking packages in the file manager. That's like manually managing music files in the era of jukebox apps like iTunes. The success of software stores like Steam and Apple's app store signals that directly dealing with packages through the filesystem has become an outdated concept.
Mainstream users don't want to run esoteric command line utilities and micromanage packages to install a game. The GUI has been around since the 1960s; it's time to embrace the expectations of the rest of the world.
when I can just download, tar xvfz &&./runme , I don't see the point of this.
You'd really rather "tar xvfz &&./runme" instead of installing in a GUI?
Does this mean EA is going to start doing Linux ports through this?
If that was true, I'm sure we'd have heard about it. Besides, in the unlikely event that Linux desktop gaming actually picked up any momentum, Valve would just release their Linux port of Steam.
At first it seems like this directed at Mario and Nintendo however I think they're merely using the popularity of Mario to get this message out about the cruelty of Chinese fur farms.
They claim specifically that Mario is taking a "pro fur stance."
Japan has a folkloric reverence for raccoon dogs as mischievous shapeshifters. It's just a silly suit Mario is wearing, and there's no implication that Mario killed and skinned a human-sized raccoon dog to wear its fur and fly in it.
After so many lies and disappointments from this administration, I'm curious why you or anyone would expect otherwise, though I disagree with your "corporatocracy" remark as this is an expansion of government power.
Why not type the notes in the first place using a laptop, netbook, or even an iPad with a bluetooth keyboard? It's faster and more legible. If double data entry is desired for memory retention, type them again in a formatted style.
This seems like a really foolish thing for a convicted monopoly to do. I could see a clear case being made that Microsoft is leveraging their postion in the PC market to dominate in the mobile phone market.
As opposed to a leveraging a monopoly position in web search to dominate the mobile phone market by giving away a free product that competitors can't afford to compete with on price? This situation seems familiar...
Well, Google couldn't compete in the mobile marketplace either, so they decided to give a product away for free, funded by their monopoly search profits, just as Microsoft once did with Internet Explorer when it couldn't compete with Netscape. It wouldn't surprise me to get modbombed into oblivion for posting this on Slashdot (it happens), but it's the reality of the situation.
Google memos show that they were aware of Android's patent issues and chose to ignore them. I know Slashdot thinks all patents are evil (along with copyrights, commercial software, paying for music, etc.), but there are legitimate patents, and companies do deserve compensation for their research and development. I'm sure the many amateur patent lawyers that visit Slashdot will tear apart these patents with their expert analysis.
On the one hand, the tech industry is awash in patent trolls, companies that own generally spurious patents for technologies they didn't really invent, which exist solely to sue other companies into licensing said technologies. On the other, we have tech companies that have patents for technologies that they did, in fact, invent (or at least purchase legitimately) and, as important, use in actual products. These companies, too, must sue others to protect their patents, but for far more legitimate reasons.
Google is upset about the latter kind of company, and it's citing two heavy-hitters, Apple and Microsoft, as example of companies that own patents and are using the legal system to prevent other companies from infringing on their protected technologies. More specifically, these companies are using their patents in a war against Google's Android OS, which is of course the dominant market leader. In poor Google's world, these companies are out for no good.
But what's the argument here, exactly?
According to a blog post that voices this complaint, and I'm using its exact wording here, "Android is on fire. More than 550,000 Android devices are activated every day, through a network of 39 manufacturers and 231 carriers."
Oh. Great. So there's no cause for alarm, right? I mean, Android is already running roughshod over the rest of the mobile world, including industry darling Apple's iPhone. Right?
Wrong.
"Android's success has yielded... a hostile, organized campaign against Android by Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through bogus patents," Google Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer David Drummond writes in the post.
Ah, bogus patents. I'm curious how that was determined. Let's read on. Surely, this will be explained. After all, it's an incredible charge to make publicly. There must be proof and some public explanation of why that word was used.
"They're doing this by banding together to acquire Novell's old patents and Nortel's old patents (the 'Rockstar' group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn't get them; seeking $15 licensing fees for every Android device; attempting to make it more expensive for phone manufacturers to license Android (which we provide free of charge) than Windows Phone 7; and even suing Barnes & Noble, HTC, Motorola, and Samsung. Patents were meant to encourage innovation, but lately they are being used as a weapon to stop it."
Actually, using patents in this way is a legitimate business endeavor with no proof of "bogusness." But I am curious, if Google had in fact won these patents for itself, would that have made them "non-bogus"?
I'm sure he'll explain the bogus comment. Let's keep reading.
"A smartphone might involve as many as 250,000 (largely questionable) patent claims, and our competitors want to impose a 'tax' for these dubious patents that makes Android devices more expensive for consumers. They want to make it harder for manufacturers to sell Android devices. Instead of competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting through litigation. This anti-competitive strategy is also escalating the cost of patents way beyond what they’re really worth."
Again, no explanation of the bogus claim is made, though he does repeat the charge ("largely questionable patent claims"), place the word tax in quotes, suggesting that these companies use this term themselves, and then add a more general "anti-competitive" charge. The thing is, this activity is the very notion of competitiveness. Patents are designed to protect intellectual property, which are a competitive advantage. In many ways, Apple, Microsoft, and whoever else owns these patents actually protecting them is what makes this activity competitive. Google can't just use protected technologies owned by other companies without paying for them. That is competition.
Then be specific about what distance you're talking about. A certain wifi being only two or three blocks away ("within driving distance"), combined with circumstantial evidence against you, gives investigators another piece to their puzzle.
In the case against me? And they picked me, John Q. Randomdude, as the suspect because ???
Any number of reasons already stated in this discussion that might lead to your exposure to a government. If you're within driving distance of a specific unsecured wifi, you can no longer convincingly deny that you would even be using that wifi, and it becomes another piece in an investigation. You're a fool if you think you can truly be anonymous on the internet. All you can do is throw up enough roadblocks to make yourself not worth going after unless you've done something truly egregious.
It's absolutely true. In fact, an open WiFi within driving distance of you means you were capable of using it, which could be another piece in a case against you.
So? Why choose a device that doesn't meet your needs and work around it, when there are devices that do?
The submitter didn't bring up recording, so I suggested it. And following that, you don't think it's pertinent to suggest the #1 tablet in the market, with the largest number of apps and a long battery life? There are even stylus accessories for the iPad. This isn't about platform wars; I'm just responding to the guy's question like everyone else.
And a stylus doesn't provide a good handwriting experience.
Jobs is dead. Apple will be dead in next 5 years. Android has steamrolled it. Just accept it.
You're trying too hard. The key to good trolling is subtlety. You also shouldn't claim things that are easily refuted; iPads dominate the tablet market.
My comment was marked as Troll? You can seriously get modded down on Slashdot now for expecting an open source project to have its source available? Talk about jumping the shark.
Slashdot Mirror
What people seemed to agree with that? One guy with a blog? The tech press?
Android supporters constantly claim that these kinds of people exist, yet they are never seen. Are they some kind of bogeyman invented to have something to mock? Real Apple fans are even bitchier than Android fans when it comes to criticizing Apple, as any visit to an Apple forum will prove. It seems Android has become a rallying point for two kinds of users--budget buyers not interested in phone quality and cross-armed, spec-obsessed techies who hate things that are popular.
Do you actually know any of the people you and the grandparent poster are describing, or are you guys making them up for purposes of trolling? The majority of iPhone users don't even know or care what size the screen is.
A government's environmental program fails? I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked. It's almost as if governments are just as inefficient and corrupt as the companies they're supposed to be regulating--except that they get paid regardless due to taxes.
Not clear on the reason for the negative attitude.
You suggested decompressing and double-clicking packages in the file manager. That's like manually managing music files in the era of jukebox apps like iTunes. The success of software stores like Steam and Apple's app store signals that directly dealing with packages through the filesystem has become an outdated concept.
Mainstream users don't want to run esoteric command line utilities and micromanage packages to install a game. The GUI has been around since the 1960s; it's time to embrace the expectations of the rest of the world.
You'd really rather "tar xvfz && ./runme" instead of installing in a GUI?
If that was true, I'm sure we'd have heard about it. Besides, in the unlikely event that Linux desktop gaming actually picked up any momentum, Valve would just release their Linux port of Steam.
They claim specifically that Mario is taking a "pro fur stance."
Japan has a folkloric reverence for raccoon dogs as mischievous shapeshifters. It's just a silly suit Mario is wearing, and there's no implication that Mario killed and skinned a human-sized raccoon dog to wear its fur and fly in it.
After so many lies and disappointments from this administration, I'm curious why you or anyone would expect otherwise, though I disagree with your "corporatocracy" remark as this is an expansion of government power.
Why not type the notes in the first place using a laptop, netbook, or even an iPad with a bluetooth keyboard? It's faster and more legible. If double data entry is desired for memory retention, type them again in a formatted style.
As opposed to a leveraging a monopoly position in web search to dominate the mobile phone market by giving away a free product that competitors can't afford to compete with on price? This situation seems familiar...
Well, Google couldn't compete in the mobile marketplace either, so they decided to give a product away for free, funded by their monopoly search profits, just as Microsoft once did with Internet Explorer when it couldn't compete with Netscape. It wouldn't surprise me to get modbombed into oblivion for posting this on Slashdot (it happens), but it's the reality of the situation.
Google memos show that they were aware of Android's patent issues and chose to ignore them. I know Slashdot thinks all patents are evil (along with copyrights, commercial software, paying for music, etc.), but there are legitimate patents, and companies do deserve compensation for their research and development. I'm sure the many amateur patent lawyers that visit Slashdot will tear apart these patents with their expert analysis.
On the one hand, the tech industry is awash in patent trolls, companies that own generally spurious patents for technologies they didn't really invent, which exist solely to sue other companies into licensing said technologies. On the other, we have tech companies that have patents for technologies that they did, in fact, invent (or at least purchase legitimately) and, as important, use in actual products. These companies, too, must sue others to protect their patents, but for far more legitimate reasons.
Google is upset about the latter kind of company, and it's citing two heavy-hitters, Apple and Microsoft, as example of companies that own patents and are using the legal system to prevent other companies from infringing on their protected technologies. More specifically, these companies are using their patents in a war against Google's Android OS, which is of course the dominant market leader. In poor Google's world, these companies are out for no good.
But what's the argument here, exactly?
According to a blog post that voices this complaint, and I'm using its exact wording here, "Android is on fire. More than 550,000 Android devices are activated every day, through a network of 39 manufacturers and 231 carriers."
Oh. Great. So there's no cause for alarm, right? I mean, Android is already running roughshod over the rest of the mobile world, including industry darling Apple's iPhone. Right?
Wrong.
"Android's success has yielded ... a hostile, organized campaign against Android by Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through bogus patents," Google Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer David Drummond writes in the post.
Ah, bogus patents. I'm curious how that was determined. Let's read on. Surely, this will be explained. After all, it's an incredible charge to make publicly. There must be proof and some public explanation of why that word was used.
"They're doing this by banding together to acquire Novell's old patents and Nortel's old patents (the 'Rockstar' group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn't get them; seeking $15 licensing fees for every Android device; attempting to make it more expensive for phone manufacturers to license Android (which we provide free of charge) than Windows Phone 7; and even suing Barnes & Noble, HTC, Motorola, and Samsung. Patents were meant to encourage innovation, but lately they are being used as a weapon to stop it."
Actually, using patents in this way is a legitimate business endeavor with no proof of "bogusness." But I am curious, if Google had in fact won these patents for itself, would that have made them "non-bogus"?
I'm sure he'll explain the bogus comment. Let's keep reading.
"A smartphone might involve as many as 250,000 (largely questionable) patent claims, and our competitors want to impose a 'tax' for these dubious patents that makes Android devices more expensive for consumers. They want to make it harder for manufacturers to sell Android devices. Instead of competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting through litigation. This anti-competitive strategy is also escalating the cost of patents way beyond what they’re really worth."
Again, no explanation of the bogus claim is made, though he does repeat the charge ("largely questionable patent claims"), place the word tax in quotes, suggesting that these companies use this term themselves, and then add a more general "anti-competitive" charge. The thing is, this activity is the very notion of competitiveness. Patents are designed to protect intellectual property, which are a competitive advantage. In many ways, Apple, Microsoft, and whoever else owns these patents actually protecting them is what makes this activity competitive. Google can't just use protected technologies owned by other companies without paying for them. That is competition.
But wait, I'm sure he'll expla
Then be specific about what distance you're talking about. A certain wifi being only two or three blocks away ("within driving distance"), combined with circumstantial evidence against you, gives investigators another piece to their puzzle.
Posting in all caps refutes arguments on the internet.
In the case against me? And they picked me, John Q. Randomdude, as the suspect because ???
Any number of reasons already stated in this discussion that might lead to your exposure to a government. If you're within driving distance of a specific unsecured wifi, you can no longer convincingly deny that you would even be using that wifi, and it becomes another piece in an investigation. You're a fool if you think you can truly be anonymous on the internet. All you can do is throw up enough roadblocks to make yourself not worth going after unless you've done something truly egregious.
Yes, that's why I said piece in a case against you. It places you in that location and means you were capable of using that wifi.
It's absolutely true. In fact, an open WiFi within driving distance of you means you were capable of using it, which could be another piece in a case against you.
The submitter didn't bring up recording, so I suggested it. And following that, you don't think it's pertinent to suggest the #1 tablet in the market, with the largest number of apps and a long battery life? There are even stylus accessories for the iPad. This isn't about platform wars; I'm just responding to the guy's question like everyone else.
Well, nothing on the internet is truly anonymous. At best, you can just throw up roadblocks.
And a stylus doesn't provide a good handwriting experience.
You're trying too hard. The key to good trolling is subtlety. You also shouldn't claim things that are easily refuted; iPads dominate the tablet market.
I guess even the good trolls have left Slashdot.
The submitter said nothing about that. People used to bring little mini-tape recorders to lectures all the time. Seriously, what an odd assumption.
My comment was marked as Troll? You can seriously get modded down on Slashdot now for expecting an open source project to have its source available? Talk about jumping the shark.
Why not record the lecture? A stylus doesn't provide a very good handwriting experience, and not using one would allow her to use an iPad.