Sounds like a spectacular way for one to reduce their life expectancy significantly.
Some of the other people I know who use Linux are some of the same folks who live in bunkers and arm themselves heavily. It's a very small fraction of a percentage of the overall user base, but I wouldn't want to fuck with those people.
Would I shed a tear if they decided to go after old Darl?
Agreed. Unless someone specifically states "I am a lawyer, and therefore..." there should be no expectation of liability in representation. "Implying" indeed. Why would someone intentionally imply that they were the lowest form of life?
You, sir, are using the exact model that I would use, if I had children myself.
Shame was a pretty good "corrective" factor when my parents were raising me, I expect it should work well in the way you describe. It corrects the child's behavior, and it reminds him that it wasn't Dad or Mom that "screwed up" it was him. Tends to motivate them to not let the parents down again.
Kudos to you. Glad to see a parent doing something intellegant, rather than expecting the rest of the world to alter their behavior in order to shield the child.
The customer might assume that the mac-only tag had to do with the fact that iTunes wasn't available for Windows back when the 5-gig iPod was sold. Now there is iTunes/windows. There's no reason for a non-technically-clued user to assume that there would be any reason why it wouldn't work. A consumer would naturally assume that iTunes/Win was created specifically to allow such use.
THere is no reasonable explaination as to why the older iPods would not work. After all, they're all just "firewire hard drives", right?
If the old units don't work, minimum care would require that Apple prevent these problems in software. THey didn't. That's really really shitty QA there. iTunes not working with some other mac only workalike I'd expect (yes I know there's no such thing) . iTunes not working, and not giving a useful and sensible error message with older hardware simply means that the product was only tested with the latest hardware, and that Apple has no concept whatsoever of regression testing.
Resumes that list Apple as a prior QA position now have no value at my company.
The big deal is that the new software, having been written by the same manufacturer as the old hardware, should detect said older hardware and deal with the situation gracefully. Anything less is shoddy workmanship, and as such should be announced loud and clear on the front page of Slashdot.
THe only common sense here in my mind is "don't buy overpriced, under-capable hardware".
" So why are you complaining about it on Slashdot, anyway ?"
Well my guess would be that by putting it a public forum, it actually becomes a PROBLEM for Apple, and something they will have to address.
Remember, we're talking about APPLE software on Windows causing the problem. Grandma Beth doesn't know anything about Mac only or Windows only. SHe only knows this iTunes thingie is supposed to work with her iPod.
Oh, I am a ADC member. THanks for the reminder. As a QA engineer, I might just file a bug report...
Oh wait. Steve Jobs doesn't sign my paycheck.
He can hire his own damn QA staff. Minimal testing by competent engineers that paid attention to how their products were being used in the wild would have prevented this.
It's not like there are hundreds of devices to test against (like in my job). There are only what, 3 or 4 variants on the iPod, with a handfull of firmware or software versions?
If Apple recognized there was a problem here, they should have put failsafes into their software. If iTunes/WIndows detects one of the old iPods, it should warn the user and not make changes. It should NOT hose the hardware.
Apple is Liable. They damaged hardware they manufactured, and could easily have TESTED against, with their own software. It is 100% their fault, and "warranty disclaimers" in the EULA will not hold up in court when the class action suit fires up.
Next time they should consider hiring a QA department.
The content over at the Apple site is just pathetic on this topic. A bigger set of kissers-of-the-ass-of-Jobs I have never seen.
I love my iBook, but stuff like this makes me ashamed that I support Apple at all...
"Calling people idiots is not only extremely rude, but very counterproductiv"
It is, however, extremely accurate, in the case of joe "sure-I'll-install-flash-oh-my-god-what-is-that-on -my-screen"
Don't understand how the thing you're using works? Don't care to learn? that would make you an idiot. (not the poster I'm replying to, but rather Al the AOL user)
Personally I don't give a shit if some mouth-breathing, inbred dipshit is offended because I won't tolerate his ignorance.
Who the fuck are you to tell the person you're responding to to shut up, anyhow? You think he's arrogant? look at yourself.
Re:Bad for users of alternative browsers?
on
IE To Block Pop-Ups
·
· Score: 1
I have to agree with that. It's unfortunate that some sites have forsaken normal, standard HTML in favor of abnormal, proprietary, and intrusive Flash.
I try to email admins of sites that castrate themselves by not providing actual web content, but unfortunately most of them aren't even capable of providing contact information, thanks to their reliance on the unnecessary crutch of Flash.
May they all starve when their employers find out how they are crippling their own websites.
That's what they were calling COBOL back when I was in college (around 1990). Suprised it's still a going concern, apart from applications that various parties were too cheap to maintain...
Additionally, IIRC, Safari is a subscription (paid) service, and royalties can be paid to authors from the subscription. Somewhat different than a free search engine, I think.
O'Reilly owns those works, and can do what they like with them. Authors of O'Reilly books are either employees of O'Reilly, or contracted to write for them.
Authors who do not work for their publishers retain all ownership of their own works (unless they're foolish enough to sign them away, which most are'nt) Publishing a book in one form does not give you the right to distribute it in another form, without a seperate agreement with the owner of the work.
Not absurd at all. The AUTHOR still owns the work. Typically, the publishing contract will cover Book, and sometimes eBook form. Open, no compensation publishing on the web is not covered. The author is entitled to compensation, and the publisher isn't entitled to say "oh that's ok, go ahead" because the book does not belong to them.
Copyright violation is a contractual issue, not a criminal one. RIAA protestations to the contrary are baldfaced lies. It's not theft. It's a violation of copyright. You cannot be arrested for violating copyright law (yet). You can only be sued.
And the law he was looking for is an offence called "Barrartry" which is "using the threat of (baseless) legal action to induce a party to comply with your commands without actually intending to bring the case before a judge (because you know you're wrong) Lawyers can lose their right to be lawyers for pulling that kind of shit, if the "defendant" is clued in enough to file the proper complaint.
Costing a shark his means of earning obscene amounts of money: priceless.
"I hope congress and the FCC see Viacom's threat to halt HDTV broadcast for what it is: an attempt to ursurp the governement's power."
In fact, given the existing mandated shift to HDTV, I hope that the FCC will see such a threat as "willful non-compliance" and, if Viacom follows through on the threat, the FCC should pull the plug on them entirely, and Fine Mr Kazarian very heavily.
In the US, if the FCC says you don't broadcast (because you broke the rules), that's the end of the discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
That, of course, is what the Lawyers are for. Enough processing, and I'm sure the vermin taste can be removed.
"Now available for Orbital consumption, Soylent Weasel"
Sounds like a spectacular way for one to reduce their life expectancy significantly.
Some of the other people I know who use Linux are some of the same folks who live in bunkers and arm themselves heavily. It's a very small fraction of a percentage of the overall user base, but I wouldn't want to fuck with those people.
Would I shed a tear if they decided to go after old Darl?
Fuck no.
Agreed. Unless someone specifically states "I am a lawyer, and therefore..." there should be no expectation of liability in representation. "Implying" indeed. Why would someone intentionally imply that they were the lowest form of life?
You, sir, are using the exact model that I would use, if I had children myself.
Shame was a pretty good "corrective" factor when my parents were raising me, I expect it should work well in the way you describe. It corrects the child's behavior, and it reminds him that it wasn't Dad or Mom that "screwed up" it was him. Tends to motivate them to not let the parents down again.
Kudos to you. Glad to see a parent doing something intellegant, rather than expecting the rest of the world to alter their behavior in order to shield the child.
"What do you expect?"
A little QA testing and attention to customers.
The customer might assume that the mac-only tag had to do with the fact that iTunes wasn't available for Windows back when the 5-gig iPod was sold. Now there is iTunes/windows. There's no reason for a non-technically-clued user to assume that there would be any reason why it wouldn't work. A consumer would naturally assume that iTunes/Win was created specifically to allow such use.
THere is no reasonable explaination as to why the older iPods would not work. After all, they're all just "firewire hard drives", right?
If the old units don't work, minimum care would require that Apple prevent these problems in software. THey didn't. That's really really shitty QA there. iTunes not working with some other mac only workalike I'd expect (yes I know there's no such thing) . iTunes not working, and not giving a useful and sensible error message with older hardware simply means that the product was only tested with the latest hardware, and that Apple has no concept whatsoever of regression testing.
Resumes that list Apple as a prior QA position now have no value at my company.
The big deal is that the new software, having been written by the same manufacturer as the old hardware, should detect said older hardware and deal with the situation gracefully. Anything less is shoddy workmanship, and as such should be announced loud and clear on the front page of Slashdot.
THe only common sense here in my mind is "don't buy overpriced, under-capable hardware".
That wasn't a crack on OSX or Macs.
" So why are you complaining about it on Slashdot, anyway ?"
Well my guess would be that by putting it a public forum, it actually becomes a PROBLEM for Apple, and something they will have to address.
Remember, we're talking about APPLE software on Windows causing the problem. Grandma Beth doesn't know anything about Mac only or Windows only. SHe only knows this iTunes thingie is supposed to work with her iPod.
Oh, I am a ADC member. THanks for the reminder. As a QA engineer, I might just file a bug report...
Oh wait. Steve Jobs doesn't sign my paycheck.
He can hire his own damn QA staff. Minimal testing by competent engineers that paid attention to how their products were being used in the wild would have prevented this.
It's not like there are hundreds of devices to test against (like in my job). There are only what, 3 or 4 variants on the iPod, with a handfull of firmware or software versions?
Amateur mistake. Not Quality Software at all.
Please.
If Apple recognized there was a problem here, they should have put failsafes into their software. If iTunes/WIndows detects one of the old iPods, it should warn the user and not make changes. It should NOT hose the hardware.
Apple is Liable. They damaged hardware they manufactured, and could easily have TESTED against, with their own software. It is 100% their fault, and "warranty disclaimers" in the EULA will not hold up in court when the class action suit fires up.
Next time they should consider hiring a QA department.
The content over at the Apple site is just pathetic on this topic. A bigger set of kissers-of-the-ass-of-Jobs I have never seen.
I love my iBook, but stuff like this makes me ashamed that I support Apple at all...
How's the weather in Redmond this time of year?
And there are hosts outside your network that you DO trust to control your router? Other than yourself, that is.
If the default is to allow hosts to control the router via UPnP, that's a bad thing.
"Calling people idiots is not only extremely rude, but very counterproductiv"
n -my-screen"
It is, however, extremely accurate, in the case of joe "sure-I'll-install-flash-oh-my-god-what-is-that-o
Don't understand how the thing you're using works? Don't care to learn? that would make you an idiot. (not the poster I'm replying to, but rather Al the AOL user)
Personally I don't give a shit if some mouth-breathing, inbred dipshit is offended because I won't tolerate his ignorance.
Who the fuck are you to tell the person you're responding to to shut up, anyhow? You think he's arrogant? look at yourself.
You installed Flash, didn't you?
I have to agree with that. It's unfortunate that some sites have forsaken normal, standard HTML in favor of abnormal, proprietary, and intrusive Flash.
I try to email admins of sites that castrate themselves by not providing actual web content, but unfortunately most of them aren't even capable of providing contact information, thanks to their reliance on the unnecessary crutch of Flash.
May they all starve when their employers find out how they are crippling their own websites.
That's what they were calling COBOL back when I was in college (around 1990). Suprised it's still a going concern, apart from applications that various parties were too cheap to maintain...
.Net, though....
Not in favor of migrating to
Holy Crap! for once a landshark might do some good. I'd LOVE to see those logos eliminated!
Oh wait. They'll probably animate them so that they move all over the screen...
Damn
Additionally, IIRC, Safari is a subscription (paid) service, and royalties can be paid to authors from the subscription. Somewhat different than a free search engine, I think.
Tell that to Harlan Ellison.
He's well known for suing (and winning) when his ownership rights for his work are infringed on.
Even against publishers.
As cynical as many of us are, the law still does work when things like ownership of a book are concerned.
O'Reilly owns those works, and can do what they like with them. Authors of O'Reilly books are either employees of O'Reilly, or contracted to write for them.
Authors who do not work for their publishers retain all ownership of their own works (unless they're foolish enough to sign them away, which most are'nt) Publishing a book in one form does not give you the right to distribute it in another form, without a seperate agreement with the owner of the work.
Not absurd at all. The AUTHOR still owns the work. Typically, the publishing contract will cover Book, and sometimes eBook form. Open, no compensation publishing on the web is not covered. The author is entitled to compensation, and the publisher isn't entitled to say "oh that's ok, go ahead" because the book does not belong to them.
Best non-sequitir I've read in a long time. You're either a brilliant comic, deeply disturbed, or quite possibly both. Cheers!
unless the State is Arkansas. THen you're OK if she's reached the age of Majority (1 year for hogs. 14 for humans)
Agreed. It's Spyware.
Gator is SPYWARE.
Sue me, motherfuckers, I dare you.
For the most part, they aren't breaking the law.
Copyright violation is a contractual issue, not a criminal one. RIAA protestations to the contrary are baldfaced lies. It's not theft. It's a violation of copyright. You cannot be arrested for violating copyright law (yet). You can only be sued.
And the law he was looking for is an offence called "Barrartry" which is "using the threat of (baseless) legal action to induce a party to comply with your commands without actually intending to bring the case before a judge (because you know you're wrong) Lawyers can lose their right to be lawyers for pulling that kind of shit, if the "defendant" is clued in enough to file the proper complaint.
Costing a shark his means of earning obscene amounts of money: priceless.
I'd call that grounds for a counter-suit.
"I hope congress and the FCC see Viacom's threat to halt HDTV broadcast for what it is: an attempt to ursurp the governement's power."
In fact, given the existing mandated shift to HDTV, I hope that the FCC will see such a threat as "willful non-compliance" and, if Viacom follows through on the threat, the FCC should pull the plug on them entirely, and Fine Mr Kazarian very heavily.
In the US, if the FCC says you don't broadcast (because you broke the rules), that's the end of the discussion.