You do realise that Apple patents these things in order to protect themselves from lawsuits, right? I don't understand why everybody gives Apple crap when it comes to patenting these kind of things given how many patents they have implemented and how few lawsuits Apple has actually filed regarding other people implementing similar functionality. Perhaps I'm forgetting them?
Any company that implements these types of features without patenting them leave themselves open to lawsuits from other companies that have patents. Given all the coverage on patents and IP topics on Slashdot, I thought this would have been patently obvious, but I guess too many people here think that filing a patent is completely immoral and inexcusable, rather than a sensible business practice.
I don't like how the IP system is being abused anymore than most other people here -- and that includes Apple's shenanigans. But perhaps we should all ignore the sensationalist BS from Wired and wait until Apple actually does start filing lawsuits before we all start posting about how Apple is evil and how we were all thinking about buying a Mac and have now changed our minds?
I agree. That "dangerous ground" comment was too much. As much as I'm all for user submitted content, sometimes I really do get sick of reading stupid remarks like that on the front page of a commercial site. It's the same sensationalist crap that people here criticise CNN et al for. Surely we can do better now considering how many people submit articles? Is a bit of professionalism really too much to ask for?
I hate changing passwords. I know that most of the people where I used to work hated changing passwords, too. I know many people leave it until they absolutely must change it else they can no longer login and have to call tech support. What makes you think a 7yo is going to be any easier given that, as a couple of other people have said, a kid's favorite thing can change very often.
Or use a non-abstract password, like her favourite food, or least favourite food.
Well, I'm no security expert, but I'm pretty sure that's the kinda thing you want to avoid -- I'm sure "ice cream" and "cauliflower" (if she can remember how to spell it) are in some dictionaries, and therefore open to brute-force methods.
I'm with you on the sticky note, though. Keeping it on a sticky note is much more secure for many home environments -- even if someone has physical access to the computer, you can always tell them to hide the note somewhere nearby. After a while, she'll probably remember it anyway, and therefore be on the way to developing good password/security skills.
Actually, I think that cases where this keyboard will really shine (rather than be more of an expensive toy) are in applications where you don't do much typing at all but still have a huge range of keyboard shortcuts that you are constantly using. Apple's Final Cut is a good example. In fact, you could remove a huge amount of the button interface and put it on the keyboard -- more precious screen space for other stuff.
And if you have that much USB stuff (including a USB ethernet adapter), then is a USB hub really out of the question? I mean, that was even one of the points Mossberg made, wasn't it?
But given that many people would rather just copy over their entire music library than have to choose which ones to put on each time, 64GBs isn't a lot.
It comes down to what you want a laptop for... and looking at what YOU deem to be important and applying that to EVERYONE is such an immature attitude.
And why does this not apply to you? The funny thing is, it doesn't apply to Mossberg because he is a big tech writer and people read his stuff specifically to get his opinion.
It makes sense: Much of the criticism of the MacBook Air are of it's clearly advertised lack of big features (quite literally). Those that have decided that these issues don't affect them are left with what appears to be an excellent laptop (for its intended market).
To put it another way: It's not like people are buying them, later realizing that they lack an optical drive, then making sure they let people know by posting a harsh review.
Many people have commented on how much better the keyboard and screen are compared to other current comparable Macs. Add in the "world first" slim design and a goodie such as iPhone-like gesture support on the trackpad, then keep in mind that there isn't really another laptop with a similar feature-set and design to compare it to (point out its deficiencies), and you have a product that can seem almost perfect -- worth 5 stars.
Speaking of all this MacBook Air stuff, I managed to get a glimpse of one in a store (a non-Apple store in NZ). Unfortunately, it was lid-down and locked in a display case (unlike the other laptops), and the staff were too busy with real customers to let some poor, drooling nerd have a grope around with it.
If you can make it obvious that your changes are correct (such as making a note in the talk page), then the other editors should see that, and you can just leave it up to them if you don't have the time yourself. Sure, there's always the chance that it won't stick, or someone will make it wrong again. But most of the time things work out OK.
That depends on how likely you are to develop cancer in the first place. Whether an individual could justify spending any time or money trying to lower it further really depends on the individual.
Which is more likely to cause cancer? Talking, something that we've been doing for 1000s of years, with no evidence at all that supports that idea (unless you have a link?), or cellphones, something that works via microwave radiation, which we already know can cause cancer depending on the circumstances.
It's different because in one case, the watermark is an optional feature added for the benefit of the user, and in the other case, it's forced mark that has been added without consideration for what it best to the user.
Explain to me how this is any different? One day it's an "option" in the high-end DSLR firmware. Next year it's turned on by default in the midrange. Couple years down the road, it'll be standard. Year after that, it'll be illegal not to ship a camera with the iris-based tracking system.
There is no real reason to think this is true. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Many people here are so paranoid that they think everyone is out to get them. If watermarks on printers were announced as a feature before they were ever put into production, do you think it would have been as successful? And how can this be forced onto people anyway? There is no way for the camera to tell if the photo of your iris is really yours or not to begin with. Don't you think there might be a reason for that? If Canon really wanted to track you, don't you think a more simple UID watermark generated on the camera would be the best way to do it?
But hey, mod me down, because by the rating you seem to be getting, there must be quite a few others wearing their tin-foil hats today.
I have great concern about privacy and the use of technology in general. I used to be an EFF member in sunnier days of higher income, but what I really can't stand are "advocates" who overreact to these types of things without even considering if it's really a problem.
How the hell is this a lose-lose situation? The whole point is this gives those people who do want every photo they take to trace back to them an option to do so. Do you really think they will force people to use this feature? Do you really think everyone is so paranoid to the point where they won't buy any camera with this technology?
Unless you are just trolling, this is definitely one of the more tin-foil-hat posts I've seen on Slashdot in a long time.
Perhaps there is a concern for identity theft, depending on how it's implemented, but I'm sure there are ways around that if it is a real problem.
I've had this once or twice, but only while using VLC. But it has fixed a similar issue where the mouse would go flaky for less than a second due to bogging the video card, so it could be related.
Also seems to have fixed a problem that some of us iMac users were having where the mouse would get jumpy when the video card was bogged down, such as when using Aperture or watching a video while switching between other windows etc.
I have yet to meet an engineer who was incapable of using non-rational decision making tools in the non-engineering aspects of their life.
Obviously, just as how graphic designers need to make rational decisions, too. But that still doesn't mean they'll be as good at it.
Both have gotten to the same place: one through gut intuition; the other through a weird alchemy of web spiders, Perl analysis of captured style sheets, and esoteric manipulations with pivot tables. Both processes are equally non-rational. One simply uses more numbers than the other.
But that's not how it usually works out. You can always rationalize a graphic design decision, but that doesn't mean it has any relevance. Graphic design requires you to be able to look at the whole and evaluate it -- not evaluate it by breaking it down to components and evaluating the details, which is more of an engineering process.
I'm not saying it's impossible for an engineer-type to be good a graphic designer (I'd say I was more of an engineer than an artist), or even that a person with not an aesthetic bone in their body can't learn if they really try. But in my experience, most of the time, it's not enough to just learn the theory if you don't already have any natural graphic design skills -- it takes time and experience to develop it.
You can know all the design theory there is, but a good designer still needs to have some "artistic talent" or whatever you want to call it, as design theory is a guide to help you create a good design -- it can't tell you exactly what you need to do for each case. You can use a color wheel to find complementary colors, but which color do you start with, and which color scheme do you use? There are no right answers, so you still need some sort of non-rational decision making skills.
Plenty of males in a graphic design industry. It's not male dominated, of course, but I'm not sure it's female dominated, either. Also, you should probably hire a web designer, rather than an artist or print designer, as only a web designer has a good idea of what designs will work on the web.
I read it, but the impression that I got was that you thought all these people talking about which GUI was better were all missing the point, because the main cause of the problem was simply that it's a case of learning something different. Sorry if that was not the case. I still stand by my second point.
Slashdot Mirror
Err... Hate to rain on your poor thinking here, but Apple is already in that position, and they seem to be doing well.
You do realise that Apple patents these things in order to protect themselves from lawsuits, right? I don't understand why everybody gives Apple crap when it comes to patenting these kind of things given how many patents they have implemented and how few lawsuits Apple has actually filed regarding other people implementing similar functionality. Perhaps I'm forgetting them?
Any company that implements these types of features without patenting them leave themselves open to lawsuits from other companies that have patents. Given all the coverage on patents and IP topics on Slashdot, I thought this would have been patently obvious, but I guess too many people here think that filing a patent is completely immoral and inexcusable, rather than a sensible business practice.
I don't like how the IP system is being abused anymore than most other people here -- and that includes Apple's shenanigans. But perhaps we should all ignore the sensationalist BS from Wired and wait until Apple actually does start filing lawsuits before we all start posting about how Apple is evil and how we were all thinking about buying a Mac and have now changed our minds?
My big problem with this is that EVERY program for the iPhone has to come from iTunes, which means it will most likely be sold.
And what exactly is your basis for thinking that? Podcasts are free and done through iTunes. Do you have an inside source or something?
I agree. That "dangerous ground" comment was too much. As much as I'm all for user submitted content, sometimes I really do get sick of reading stupid remarks like that on the front page of a commercial site. It's the same sensationalist crap that people here criticise CNN et al for. Surely we can do better now considering how many people submit articles? Is a bit of professionalism really too much to ask for?
I hate changing passwords. I know that most of the people where I used to work hated changing passwords, too. I know many people leave it until they absolutely must change it else they can no longer login and have to call tech support. What makes you think a 7yo is going to be any easier given that, as a couple of other people have said, a kid's favorite thing can change very often.
Or use a non-abstract password, like her favourite food, or least favourite food.
Well, I'm no security expert, but I'm pretty sure that's the kinda thing you want to avoid -- I'm sure "ice cream" and "cauliflower" (if she can remember how to spell it) are in some dictionaries, and therefore open to brute-force methods.
I'm with you on the sticky note, though. Keeping it on a sticky note is much more secure for many home environments -- even if someone has physical access to the computer, you can always tell them to hide the note somewhere nearby. After a while, she'll probably remember it anyway, and therefore be on the way to developing good password/security skills.
In a way, that's pretty much the same as a password, except using pictures instead of letters.
I thought that was the whole point? It's functionally similar, but much easier to remember for many people.
Actually, I think that cases where this keyboard will really shine (rather than be more of an expensive toy) are in applications where you don't do much typing at all but still have a huge range of keyboard shortcuts that you are constantly using. Apple's Final Cut is a good example. In fact, you could remove a huge amount of the button interface and put it on the keyboard -- more precious screen space for other stuff.
And if you have that much USB stuff (including a USB ethernet adapter), then is a USB hub really out of the question? I mean, that was even one of the points Mossberg made, wasn't it?
But given that many people would rather just copy over their entire music library than have to choose which ones to put on each time, 64GBs isn't a lot.
I saw one of those cute Lifebooks today. That keyboard is also going to be a case of reduced functionality for some people.
It comes down to what you want a laptop for... and looking at what YOU deem to be important and applying that to EVERYONE is such an immature attitude.
And why does this not apply to you? The funny thing is, it doesn't apply to Mossberg because he is a big tech writer and people read his stuff specifically to get his opinion.
It makes sense: Much of the criticism of the MacBook Air are of it's clearly advertised lack of big features (quite literally). Those that have decided that these issues don't affect them are left with what appears to be an excellent laptop (for its intended market).
To put it another way: It's not like people are buying them, later realizing that they lack an optical drive, then making sure they let people know by posting a harsh review.
Many people have commented on how much better the keyboard and screen are compared to other current comparable Macs. Add in the "world first" slim design and a goodie such as iPhone-like gesture support on the trackpad, then keep in mind that there isn't really another laptop with a similar feature-set and design to compare it to (point out its deficiencies), and you have a product that can seem almost perfect -- worth 5 stars.
Speaking of all this MacBook Air stuff, I managed to get a glimpse of one in a store (a non-Apple store in NZ). Unfortunately, it was lid-down and locked in a display case (unlike the other laptops), and the staff were too busy with real customers to let some poor, drooling nerd have a grope around with it.
If you can make it obvious that your changes are correct (such as making a note in the talk page), then the other editors should see that, and you can just leave it up to them if you don't have the time yourself. Sure, there's always the chance that it won't stick, or someone will make it wrong again. But most of the time things work out OK.
On those scales, a touch interface would have the same problems, I would have thought.
That depends on how likely you are to develop cancer in the first place. Whether an individual could justify spending any time or money trying to lower it further really depends on the individual.
Which is more likely to cause cancer? Talking, something that we've been doing for 1000s of years, with no evidence at all that supports that idea (unless you have a link?), or cellphones, something that works via microwave radiation, which we already know can cause cancer depending on the circumstances.
It's different because in one case, the watermark is an optional feature added for the benefit of the user, and in the other case, it's forced mark that has been added without consideration for what it best to the user.
Explain to me how this is any different? One day it's an "option" in the high-end DSLR firmware. Next year it's turned on by default in the midrange. Couple years down the road, it'll be standard. Year after that, it'll be illegal not to ship a camera with the iris-based tracking system.
There is no real reason to think this is true. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Many people here are so paranoid that they think everyone is out to get them. If watermarks on printers were announced as a feature before they were ever put into production, do you think it would have been as successful? And how can this be forced onto people anyway? There is no way for the camera to tell if the photo of your iris is really yours or not to begin with. Don't you think there might be a reason for that? If Canon really wanted to track you, don't you think a more simple UID watermark generated on the camera would be the best way to do it?
But hey, mod me down, because by the rating you seem to be getting, there must be quite a few others wearing their tin-foil hats today.
I have great concern about privacy and the use of technology in general. I used to be an EFF member in sunnier days of higher income, but what I really can't stand are "advocates" who overreact to these types of things without even considering if it's really a problem.
How the hell is this a lose-lose situation? The whole point is this gives those people who do want every photo they take to trace back to them an option to do so. Do you really think they will force people to use this feature? Do you really think everyone is so paranoid to the point where they won't buy any camera with this technology?
Unless you are just trolling, this is definitely one of the more tin-foil-hat posts I've seen on Slashdot in a long time.
Perhaps there is a concern for identity theft, depending on how it's implemented, but I'm sure there are ways around that if it is a real problem.
I've had this once or twice, but only while using VLC. But it has fixed a similar issue where the mouse would go flaky for less than a second due to bogging the video card, so it could be related.
Also seems to have fixed a problem that some of us iMac users were having where the mouse would get jumpy when the video card was bogged down, such as when using Aperture or watching a video while switching between other windows etc.
I have yet to meet an engineer who was incapable of using non-rational decision making tools in the non-engineering aspects of their life.
Obviously, just as how graphic designers need to make rational decisions, too. But that still doesn't mean they'll be as good at it.
Both have gotten to the same place: one through gut intuition; the other through a weird alchemy of web spiders, Perl analysis of captured style sheets, and esoteric manipulations with pivot tables. Both processes are equally non-rational. One simply uses more numbers than the other.
But that's not how it usually works out. You can always rationalize a graphic design decision, but that doesn't mean it has any relevance. Graphic design requires you to be able to look at the whole and evaluate it -- not evaluate it by breaking it down to components and evaluating the details, which is more of an engineering process.
I'm not saying it's impossible for an engineer-type to be good a graphic designer (I'd say I was more of an engineer than an artist), or even that a person with not an aesthetic bone in their body can't learn if they really try. But in my experience, most of the time, it's not enough to just learn the theory if you don't already have any natural graphic design skills -- it takes time and experience to develop it.
You can know all the design theory there is, but a good designer still needs to have some "artistic talent" or whatever you want to call it, as design theory is a guide to help you create a good design -- it can't tell you exactly what you need to do for each case. You can use a color wheel to find complementary colors, but which color do you start with, and which color scheme do you use? There are no right answers, so you still need some sort of non-rational decision making skills.
Plenty of males in a graphic design industry. It's not male dominated, of course, but I'm not sure it's female dominated, either. Also, you should probably hire a web designer, rather than an artist or print designer, as only a web designer has a good idea of what designs will work on the web.
I read it, but the impression that I got was that you thought all these people talking about which GUI was better were all missing the point, because the main cause of the problem was simply that it's a case of learning something different. Sorry if that was not the case. I still stand by my second point.