Consider the "security" of the entry akin to having an unlocked door that is merely obscured by bushes painted to match the brickwork, and no pavement leading to it. There also was no one monitoring the traffic going in and out, so no one was there to notice the reporters making photographs until much later.
The problem here is that hovering was designed to solve a problem that the iPad and other touchscreen devices do not have: to aid in identifying the position of the cursor on the screen. Touchscreen, however, need no cursor in that sense - the contact point is on the display, not on a separate surface and then mapped to screen like a mouse. They use a different paradigm, since the user input is more direct. If you think about it, the "problem" also applies to other touchscreen devices like the Android-based smartphones.
Attempting to make hovers available on the iPad is needlessly complicating things, really. Instead, it forces designers to reconsider their designs to match the input method. Suckerfish menus will have to rely upon a click and not open on hover state. Hover states should be reserved for aiding those devices with indirect user interfaces, and realise that direct user interfaces like the iPad and smartphones don't have a way of detecting a hover yet.
I understand this, and I'm not attacking the AS/400 as it is a powerful system, one that does its intended jobs well. But when the IT boss tries to shut down the Macs in the shop despite the fact that they are better suited to the tasks we use them for, then I begin to suspect empire-building. Not full BOFH mode, but enough to make the IT department loathed.
Now the original argument is that Microsoft Windows won out in the workplace due to job protection in the IT department, the IT people choosing it because they knew it needed tonnes of support. I personally think the job protection argument is valid, but from a point of that most IT people were trained first to support IBM systems and stuck with it due to a dislike of having to relearn everything.
And that's why I explicitly said it's an anecdote. After all, the plural of "anecdote" is not "fact", but it does disprove claims that everything is one way or the other.
What you describe doesn't really need multitasking, since one app goes on standby whilst the other is brought to the foreground. Most of those kvetching about lack of multitasking are referring to leaving an instant messenger or some other app running in the background so that it can ping you when your girlfriend comes online, or stream music from the net or do some other task while you read your book or check your mail, and so on.
As I understand it, this isn't so much a technical issue but a design issue - Apple designed the OS to prevent multitasking, most likely because too many apps abuse this and suck up energy. This could have a serious drawback on battery life, or be a nice little niche where a piece of malware could do damage.
Gotta agree with you there.But the PowerPC chips kept the Mac alive longer than a switch to any other processor at the time; they were close enough to the Motorola 680x0 line that the OS could be ported with decent emulation to run older binaries. It was only near the end, when Motorola and IBM lost interest in going head to head with intel that Apple decided to switch again.
I think the Performa got singled out as a line despite there being gems in the mix due to how terrible it was for the stores to sell. Looking back now it was muddled, and infuriating. The only thing that made it worse was when Apple began to license System 7.5 to other manufacturers, and effectively shot themselves in the foot. As a series, it was a mess. I had one of those awful 5200 machines, mainly because it also doubled as my television.
I also don't see Mac OS 9 as a failure, as it was built specifically to be the "classic" part of Mac OS X. In that role, especially as Mac OS 9.2, it performed admirably. I still use it now and then to run vintage games.
I am surprised to see that the G4 Mac Cube wasn't mentioned, nor the Newton. Both of those products were cases of Apple falling flat, though the Cube did turn out to be a "break even" model for Apple that was overhyped.
It may not be the case in all shops, but I do know that it happens all the time. The company I am currently at sticks to AS/400 and Lotus on mainly for job security reasons - the IT boss started off on that, and therefore is loathe to change.
Same goes for Windows installations - IT departments are concerned about job security, so they want a system that needs lots of minor maintenance without causing real headaches. Windows fits the bill there.
But my anecdotes are just that: anecdotes. It may nor may not be widespread, and I doubt it's a conscious conspiracy, but take from it what you will.
Jailbreaking aside, perhaps the best solution would be to have a sort of SDK for hobbyists to compile their own apps? Making the SDK the other route in could add the fig leaf of the device owner being able to audit the software himself before compiling.
The reason you don't see a whole lot of listening is because Apple listens in a different way. Instead of trying to make something that matches the bullet point lists the customer research department compiles, Apple develops their devices for just one customer: Steve Jobs himself. Granted, his taste isn't always a hit (see the G4 Cube), but it does mean that the whole user experience becomes more important that mere processor speed, or bandwidth, or all the other checklist thingies.
The reason Macs look like "glorified Dells" is because of Mike Dell's unhealthy obsession with Apple, really. It's a wonder Mike Dell didn't adopt wearing black mock turtlenecks himself. Otherwise, Jobs and Gates see themselves as playing different games: Microsoft is playing Monopoly, where the winner dominates the other players, but Apple's goal is to be the coolest, and doesn't require driving the others out of business.
Matrix is actually good for a series format, each episode pulling back another onion skin to reveal more of what is really going on. Neo isn't "awoken" until the cliffhanger at the end of the first series, the second series deals with Neo being our eyes and ears as Morpheus explores the world, trying to piece together what really happened: was it Terminator-style man versus machines, a war between two human cultures and the Matrix is an attempt to keep Humans alive until the environment recovers, or is the Matrix the demonspawn of Microsoft, Blizzard, Google and Disney, a construct that was left with instructions not to let the customers log out? Does Zion really exist? After a few seasons, the storyline could wrap up with the crew of the Agamemnon forced to decide whether to heal the ailing Matrix, kill it (and let the captive humans die) or do something else entirely.
In a series format, things like "using humans for batteries" could be presented in one episode, debunked a couple of episodes later, and finally revealed to be a metaphor (the power taken from humans isn't electricity or heat, but the power of imagination).
I think a model some internet-only news sources are going to follow is that used by Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo. He has taken a blog, and built a political news network out of it with TPM, TPMDC, TPMuckraker and a couple other sites. It's been successful enough for them.
I would also keep an eye on how Salon evolves. They've been at the forefront as well, but not always among the winners. Time will tell...
Correction to your statement: the woman may or may not have attended those events if the only evidence is pictures on Facebook. If the insurer is suspicious of the claim, then it should at least make an effort to find more credible evidence. It shouldn't be all that hard. After all, digital photos nowadays are little better than hearsay, since the metadata is easily manipulated, pictures photoshopped and so on. Even the tagging on the Facebook page could have been in error, and to be honest there's little we can do to corroborate this.
Actually, there are provisions in the treaties that define the EU to allow for secession of member states. In fact, there is some grumbling about how to boot unruly nations from the EU, triggered by Ireland's initial "No" to the reform treaty. Due to its unique structure, the EU doesn't lend itself to comparisons with the USA well.
Also, the eastern states are too addicted to the funds from the EU to really rock the boat. They see how the EU and its predecessors helped Ireland and Spain turn from basket cases into relatively healthy economies. Poland especially made a lot of secessionist noise, but that only got the right wing voted out of power.
What we need over here is for the new treaty to be ratified, so that the parliament can better curb the commission when they bring such dunderheaded ideas to the floor.
Oh, and Iceland isn't a member yet, merely a candidate like Croatia and Turkey.
I suppose it's due to the risk of infecting other devices. Apple probably saw this as a chance to prevent the viral mess that plagued the pre-System 7 era of the Mac and the current Windows environments, as they expected iPhone owners to be less tech-savvy.
Apple isn't alone, as the list of hoaxes about viruses that infect phones per SMS or by merely calling an infected number show. Potential owners are already scared, so Apple needs to assure them that their devices are safe.
I don't envy Apple, as they are caught between the "I just want it to work" crowd and the "I want to modify it however I want" crowd. The former is more profitable, but the latter often invents new, cool ways to use the devices and that's also very good for Apple in the long run.
My apologies, I meant this is how I think the deployment environment should be run: either have the code vetted by a gatekeeper you trust, or compile it yourself with the unstated assumption that if you can run a compiler, you can verify the code yourself and know the risks.
Of course, you can never fully eliminate the threat, but you can raise the bar high enough to eliminate most threats. By requiring the source code, it makes it harder for a black hat to actually hide malicious code. It might instead encourage more sharing of algorithms and snippets instead of full apps.
Besides, XCode and the iPhone developer kit only run on Macs, so Apple could spur more Mac sales to those looking to install their own apps.
If you think about it and read the reports, it seems as if this is exactly what Google is doing: sticking to search. The difference is that this time it's about searching for songs to download and/or purchase.
I think the real reason Apple is so reluctant to allow apps on the iPhone is fear that one malicious app could destroy the ecosystem. That's why they first decided to not allow apps, at least not until they had the store set up.
I personally think Apple needs to have two delivery methods to the iPhone: the app store, where Apple can act as your gatekeeper, and through the developer environment, where you compile from source code and assume all responsibility for whatever bugs are in the software. Thus the only way to distribute outside of the app store would be to give away the source code. (The same thing goes for Android: either trust the app store tied to your phone or compile the code yourself)
I disagree with you as far as the online music sales monopoly goes: Apple's real interest isn't in dominating the online music store business as much as it is maintaining dominance in the music player business. They want to sell iPods first, and the online store is merely an accessory. So no, I don't think Apple would retaliate by banning Google apps, especially if it could hurt sales of iPhones and iPods in any way. The music store is a valuable chess piece, but one Apple would sacrifice to protect the more important pieces on the board.
I also think Apple is aware that this dominance cannot last forever, but their long-term strategy has always been to find what tech is a great idea if it only had a polished user interface, and give it a UI that makes it suddenly cool. Google's strategy is similar, but slightly different. Google's strategy is all about developing new ways for people to find and use the information that is out there, be it web sites, books, photos or music. The difference between the two companies is that Apple is concerned about the hardware and devices, whereas Google is focussed more on the software.
Prices may drop, but Apple's philosophy from the beginning was "the store is here for iPod owners, since the other stores were all Microsoft's bitches and we won't pay for a WMA DRM license". In other words, Apple is still very much tied to the hardware, and isn't likely to give it up soon.
On the one hand, the iTunes Store turns a modest income, but it's peanuts compared to the income that the computers, iPods and iPhones generate. Apple might actually be happy to have the iTunes Store become irrelevant if it means people buy more iPods.
In some ways it also seems like a modification of the payment model behind Kingdom of Loathing. Offer the game for free, but make some content available only to those who pay. It's also possible to get some of the premiums without paying, but that requires either grinding or a sugar daddy. The key to this model is making the players feel like you're not out to milk them, giving them the sense that they are respected.
So if KOL, a game that admittedly is pretty limited, can stay afloat all these years with this business model, I suspect D&D Online can pull it off as well. In the end, it's the content that makes people toss their money into the tip jar. To further the bad analogy, it's the difference between charging admission to enter the bar and hear the band, or passing the hat and letting the audience tip the band.
The 14 years is, curiously enough, considered the optimal length of copyright by some recent study. Apparently after the 14 years, revenues from the copyright fall off sharply, and instead the copyright becomes a tool to bludgeon new creations to death under the claim that they were plagiarised. Limiting copyrights to only 14 years also encourages a "publish or perish" mentality, instead of the publisher only resting on its back catalogue.
The important thing is that copyright was never intended to protect the creator, but the publisher. Reducing the copyright to only 14 years actually aids the creator and limits the "profession" of copyright heirs. What is good for Disney is not good for the rest of the animation industry.
First, this is Slashdot. Political positions are irrelevant, it's about the tech and the geek factor. Second, the slashcode ratings system doesn't delete, but allows for comments to be moderated. Most readers choose not to view comments below a certain threshold, but the comments are still there. Thus I suspect you are merely concern-trolling without actually bothering to understand how this comment system works.
Well, here in Germany there are lots of wind farms, and to be honest they have almost no personnel on them. Windmills and solar parks have very low maintenance costs - the only real personnel you would need full time would be perimeter guards (which the current sites need anyhow). From what I gather, this plan would be best on sites where clean-up is nigh impossible, like the toxic landfills. Places where the only real solution is to let them go fallow, or where even after clean-up remain unwanted, so why not put up a bunch of windmills?
Slashdot Mirror
To expand upon your metaphor...
Consider the "security" of the entry akin to having an unlocked door that is merely obscured by bushes painted to match the brickwork, and no pavement leading to it. There also was no one monitoring the traffic going in and out, so no one was there to notice the reporters making photographs until much later.
Security by obscurity at its finest.
The problem here is that hovering was designed to solve a problem that the iPad and other touchscreen devices do not have: to aid in identifying the position of the cursor on the screen. Touchscreen, however, need no cursor in that sense - the contact point is on the display, not on a separate surface and then mapped to screen like a mouse. They use a different paradigm, since the user input is more direct. If you think about it, the "problem" also applies to other touchscreen devices like the Android-based smartphones.
Attempting to make hovers available on the iPad is needlessly complicating things, really. Instead, it forces designers to reconsider their designs to match the input method. Suckerfish menus will have to rely upon a click and not open on hover state. Hover states should be reserved for aiding those devices with indirect user interfaces, and realise that direct user interfaces like the iPad and smartphones don't have a way of detecting a hover yet.
I understand this, and I'm not attacking the AS/400 as it is a powerful system, one that does its intended jobs well. But when the IT boss tries to shut down the Macs in the shop despite the fact that they are better suited to the tasks we use them for, then I begin to suspect empire-building. Not full BOFH mode, but enough to make the IT department loathed.
Now the original argument is that Microsoft Windows won out in the workplace due to job protection in the IT department, the IT people choosing it because they knew it needed tonnes of support. I personally think the job protection argument is valid, but from a point of that most IT people were trained first to support IBM systems and stuck with it due to a dislike of having to relearn everything.
And that's why I explicitly said it's an anecdote. After all, the plural of "anecdote" is not "fact", but it does disprove claims that everything is one way or the other.
What you describe doesn't really need multitasking, since one app goes on standby whilst the other is brought to the foreground. Most of those kvetching about lack of multitasking are referring to leaving an instant messenger or some other app running in the background so that it can ping you when your girlfriend comes online, or stream music from the net or do some other task while you read your book or check your mail, and so on.
As I understand it, this isn't so much a technical issue but a design issue - Apple designed the OS to prevent multitasking, most likely because too many apps abuse this and suck up energy. This could have a serious drawback on battery life, or be a nice little niche where a piece of malware could do damage.
Gotta agree with you there.But the PowerPC chips kept the Mac alive longer than a switch to any other processor at the time; they were close enough to the Motorola 680x0 line that the OS could be ported with decent emulation to run older binaries. It was only near the end, when Motorola and IBM lost interest in going head to head with intel that Apple decided to switch again.
I think the Performa got singled out as a line despite there being gems in the mix due to how terrible it was for the stores to sell. Looking back now it was muddled, and infuriating. The only thing that made it worse was when Apple began to license System 7.5 to other manufacturers, and effectively shot themselves in the foot. As a series, it was a mess. I had one of those awful 5200 machines, mainly because it also doubled as my television.
I also don't see Mac OS 9 as a failure, as it was built specifically to be the "classic" part of Mac OS X. In that role, especially as Mac OS 9.2, it performed admirably. I still use it now and then to run vintage games.
I am surprised to see that the G4 Mac Cube wasn't mentioned, nor the Newton. Both of those products were cases of Apple falling flat, though the Cube did turn out to be a "break even" model for Apple that was overhyped.
It may not be the case in all shops, but I do know that it happens all the time. The company I am currently at sticks to AS/400 and Lotus on mainly for job security reasons - the IT boss started off on that, and therefore is loathe to change.
Same goes for Windows installations - IT departments are concerned about job security, so they want a system that needs lots of minor maintenance without causing real headaches. Windows fits the bill there.
But my anecdotes are just that: anecdotes. It may nor may not be widespread, and I doubt it's a conscious conspiracy, but take from it what you will.
Jailbreaking aside, perhaps the best solution would be to have a sort of SDK for hobbyists to compile their own apps? Making the SDK the other route in could add the fig leaf of the device owner being able to audit the software himself before compiling.
The reason you don't see a whole lot of listening is because Apple listens in a different way. Instead of trying to make something that matches the bullet point lists the customer research department compiles, Apple develops their devices for just one customer: Steve Jobs himself. Granted, his taste isn't always a hit (see the G4 Cube), but it does mean that the whole user experience becomes more important that mere processor speed, or bandwidth, or all the other checklist thingies.
The reason Macs look like "glorified Dells" is because of Mike Dell's unhealthy obsession with Apple, really. It's a wonder Mike Dell didn't adopt wearing black mock turtlenecks himself. Otherwise, Jobs and Gates see themselves as playing different games: Microsoft is playing Monopoly, where the winner dominates the other players, but Apple's goal is to be the coolest, and doesn't require driving the others out of business.
And now we know the REAL story behind the Matrix: it was a school building!
Matrix is actually good for a series format, each episode pulling back another onion skin to reveal more of what is really going on. Neo isn't "awoken" until the cliffhanger at the end of the first series, the second series deals with Neo being our eyes and ears as Morpheus explores the world, trying to piece together what really happened: was it Terminator-style man versus machines, a war between two human cultures and the Matrix is an attempt to keep Humans alive until the environment recovers, or is the Matrix the demonspawn of Microsoft, Blizzard, Google and Disney, a construct that was left with instructions not to let the customers log out? Does Zion really exist?
After a few seasons, the storyline could wrap up with the crew of the Agamemnon forced to decide whether to heal the ailing Matrix, kill it (and let the captive humans die) or do something else entirely.
In a series format, things like "using humans for batteries" could be presented in one episode, debunked a couple of episodes later, and finally revealed to be a metaphor (the power taken from humans isn't electricity or heat, but the power of imagination).
Don't forget the chance to [a]bort if you don't have the patience to [r]etry after you [f]ail...
I think a model some internet-only news sources are going to follow is that used by Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo. He has taken a blog, and built a political news network out of it with TPM, TPMDC, TPMuckraker and a couple other sites. It's been successful enough for them.
I would also keep an eye on how Salon evolves. They've been at the forefront as well, but not always among the winners. Time will tell...
Correction to your statement: the woman may or may not have attended those events if the only evidence is pictures on Facebook. If the insurer is suspicious of the claim, then it should at least make an effort to find more credible evidence. It shouldn't be all that hard. After all, digital photos nowadays are little better than hearsay, since the metadata is easily manipulated, pictures photoshopped and so on. Even the tagging on the Facebook page could have been in error, and to be honest there's little we can do to corroborate this.
Actually, there are provisions in the treaties that define the EU to allow for secession of member states. In fact, there is some grumbling about how to boot unruly nations from the EU, triggered by Ireland's initial "No" to the reform treaty. Due to its unique structure, the EU doesn't lend itself to comparisons with the USA well.
Also, the eastern states are too addicted to the funds from the EU to really rock the boat. They see how the EU and its predecessors helped Ireland and Spain turn from basket cases into relatively healthy economies. Poland especially made a lot of secessionist noise, but that only got the right wing voted out of power.
What we need over here is for the new treaty to be ratified, so that the parliament can better curb the commission when they bring such dunderheaded ideas to the floor.
Oh, and Iceland isn't a member yet, merely a candidate like Croatia and Turkey.
I suppose it's due to the risk of infecting other devices. Apple probably saw this as a chance to prevent the viral mess that plagued the pre-System 7 era of the Mac and the current Windows environments, as they expected iPhone owners to be less tech-savvy.
Apple isn't alone, as the list of hoaxes about viruses that infect phones per SMS or by merely calling an infected number show. Potential owners are already scared, so Apple needs to assure them that their devices are safe.
I don't envy Apple, as they are caught between the "I just want it to work" crowd and the "I want to modify it however I want" crowd. The former is more profitable, but the latter often invents new, cool ways to use the devices and that's also very good for Apple in the long run.
My apologies, I meant this is how I think the deployment environment should be run: either have the code vetted by a gatekeeper you trust, or compile it yourself with the unstated assumption that if you can run a compiler, you can verify the code yourself and know the risks.
Of course, you can never fully eliminate the threat, but you can raise the bar high enough to eliminate most threats. By requiring the source code, it makes it harder for a black hat to actually hide malicious code. It might instead encourage more sharing of algorithms and snippets instead of full apps.
Besides, XCode and the iPhone developer kit only run on Macs, so Apple could spur more Mac sales to those looking to install their own apps.
If you think about it and read the reports, it seems as if this is exactly what Google is doing: sticking to search. The difference is that this time it's about searching for songs to download and/or purchase.
I think the real reason Apple is so reluctant to allow apps on the iPhone is fear that one malicious app could destroy the ecosystem. That's why they first decided to not allow apps, at least not until they had the store set up.
I personally think Apple needs to have two delivery methods to the iPhone: the app store, where Apple can act as your gatekeeper, and through the developer environment, where you compile from source code and assume all responsibility for whatever bugs are in the software. Thus the only way to distribute outside of the app store would be to give away the source code. (The same thing goes for Android: either trust the app store tied to your phone or compile the code yourself)
I disagree with you as far as the online music sales monopoly goes: Apple's real interest isn't in dominating the online music store business as much as it is maintaining dominance in the music player business. They want to sell iPods first, and the online store is merely an accessory. So no, I don't think Apple would retaliate by banning Google apps, especially if it could hurt sales of iPhones and iPods in any way. The music store is a valuable chess piece, but one Apple would sacrifice to protect the more important pieces on the board.
I also think Apple is aware that this dominance cannot last forever, but their long-term strategy has always been to find what tech is a great idea if it only had a polished user interface, and give it a UI that makes it suddenly cool. Google's strategy is similar, but slightly different. Google's strategy is all about developing new ways for people to find and use the information that is out there, be it web sites, books, photos or music. The difference between the two companies is that Apple is concerned about the hardware and devices, whereas Google is focussed more on the software.
Prices may drop, but Apple's philosophy from the beginning was "the store is here for iPod owners, since the other stores were all Microsoft's bitches and we won't pay for a WMA DRM license". In other words, Apple is still very much tied to the hardware, and isn't likely to give it up soon.
On the one hand, the iTunes Store turns a modest income, but it's peanuts compared to the income that the computers, iPods and iPhones generate. Apple might actually be happy to have the iTunes Store become irrelevant if it means people buy more iPods.
In some ways it also seems like a modification of the payment model behind Kingdom of Loathing. Offer the game for free, but make some content available only to those who pay. It's also possible to get some of the premiums without paying, but that requires either grinding or a sugar daddy. The key to this model is making the players feel like you're not out to milk them, giving them the sense that they are respected.
So if KOL, a game that admittedly is pretty limited, can stay afloat all these years with this business model, I suspect D&D Online can pull it off as well. In the end, it's the content that makes people toss their money into the tip jar. To further the bad analogy, it's the difference between charging admission to enter the bar and hear the band, or passing the hat and letting the audience tip the band.
The 14 years is, curiously enough, considered the optimal length of copyright by some recent study. Apparently after the 14 years, revenues from the copyright fall off sharply, and instead the copyright becomes a tool to bludgeon new creations to death under the claim that they were plagiarised. Limiting copyrights to only 14 years also encourages a "publish or perish" mentality, instead of the publisher only resting on its back catalogue.
The important thing is that copyright was never intended to protect the creator, but the publisher. Reducing the copyright to only 14 years actually aids the creator and limits the "profession" of copyright heirs. What is good for Disney is not good for the rest of the animation industry.
First, this is Slashdot. Political positions are irrelevant, it's about the tech and the geek factor. Second, the slashcode ratings system doesn't delete, but allows for comments to be moderated. Most readers choose not to view comments below a certain threshold, but the comments are still there. Thus I suspect you are merely concern-trolling without actually bothering to understand how this comment system works.
Well, here in Germany there are lots of wind farms, and to be honest they have almost no personnel on them. Windmills and solar parks have very low maintenance costs - the only real personnel you would need full time would be perimeter guards (which the current sites need anyhow). From what I gather, this plan would be best on sites where clean-up is nigh impossible, like the toxic landfills. Places where the only real solution is to let them go fallow, or where even after clean-up remain unwanted, so why not put up a bunch of windmills?