Funnily enough people from other sovereign states don't react well to being blanket judged by (I'm gonna take a likely stab here) an American. You go fix your problems and leave us to fix ours.
In the scope of unexpected law consequences is this even surprising? That if you were going to take a copy of someone else's copyrighted material and redistribute it you need the holder's permission? Yes, the internet works like this, but it's the only thing that does, and compared with the speed of legal change, the technology is brand new.
This will simply be ignored and fixed at some point, like all outdated rules. There are more pressing things that need changing.
Agreed. Further, we currently need oil because we burn the vase majority of it. Only 6% of oil is used in manufacturing stuff, the rest is burned for energy. The need for oil is not driven by making plastics, it's for generating energy.
I'm intrigued. You've made a lot of single-line comments to this story telling people that they're wrong without backing up or demonstrating any sort of argument why they are wrong. And then you complain about being modded down. Does it ever occur that perhaps this isn't some big conspiracy, just that you yourself are mistaken? Or perhaps that you're going about your comments in a way that's begging to be ignored? What exactly do you expect the reaction to be when your interaction with people entirely consists of brief and aggressive comments?
How does that work? The only thing I can imagine worse than not supporting multitasking is supporting it, and then randomly killing background tasks when you run out of resources. I'm sure it doesn't work quite like that, but I can't find more info about exactly how android supports multitasking.
It's something like a task is sent a "you're being backgrounded" message when you switch away from it, and it's up to the app to do whatever makes sense for it to do in that case (usually save all its data ready incase the phone is rebooted or it gets killed while backgrounded). Then the app can be sent a "please stop" or just get killed. Obviously, like any system, resources are finite and it is possible for a running background process to be killed, but that's not normal.
You can listen to music at the same time as doing other stuff on the iPhone/iPad
Yes but the only reason is because Apple's own software has special privileges to do so. A 3rd party music playing app cannot, eg Spotify. So it's obviously possible and desirable in some circumstances, just not permitted by the Apple overlords. Which means that no, Apple have not thought how to "do this properly".
I want to download a large file. I want to play music. I want to write a text message.
I suppose two of those could be considered background processes, but since the iPhone doesn't allow that either (see 3rd party music players eg Spotify) then so what? Multitasking, background processes, to the OS they're the same thing, and we aren't allowed to have either.
with my wife hating multitasking. She never closes a thing (tab, application, etc.) and invariably runs out of memory
You're absolutely right, that's the problem with multitasking. But that's because the model that desktop operating systems follow assumes that users will manage memory themselves, it doesn't mean multitasking is a bad thing. And if the OS designers put some thought into it they can solve the problem. eg in Android you never close an application, you just switch to a new one. When the system runs out of resources it politely asks non-running background apps to close (and then if necessary it kills them). Really, there's no good reason I can see why we should care as users about what apps are actually running, that's a system problem.
Don't even try to convince me that downloading a large file from the internet means I shouldn't be able to listen to music, or write a text message.
Attacking Apple's products is one thing. Why not create your own open source tablet to compete, and let the marketplace decide?
Because that's not the purpose of the FSF. If the only way to warn the public about a Potential Harmful Thing is to create your own multinational corporation with the engineering power to create open competition, that's somewhat going to limit the informed debate...
Watchdog organisation: "Look, this make of washing machine regularly blows up and kills anyone nearby" Company's apologist: "People are buying it, so obviously the market is deciding! Create your own non-explosive type and sell it"
Sometimes people don't know all the consequences of the purchase they make, that's what the FSF are trying to do. Guess what, sometimes the market gets it wrong...
Separately from the locked-down issue, do you *honestly* think that people are not going to be a bit surprised at some of the limitations of the device? No Flash therefore no Vimeo, Hulu and lots of websites will be hamstrung? It looks like a laptop without the physical keyboard, people are going to expect similar functionality.
I think though this is exactly the point of the FSF's campaign. To *tell* people this so they can make a choice. Obviously they have a particular bias, but they have to make their point forcefully to counter all the hype. "Go ahead a buy one if you must, but atleast know what you're getting yourself into..."
1. Author is very lucky he's had so much time on his hands up to the 10 month mark with his son. I've had very little time to myself since mine was born (almost 18 months). I think he's about to learn how much time and effort raising a child takes.
What? You don't know anything about the guy, what his setup is, who he's living with, who else is involved with the child. And yet you're judging him based on a throwaway comment that basically is only there to say: "there's other stuff in my life".
2. I can't believe the author of such a mature and well known product has come up with the line "believe it or not, RT is stable on my PC". Or that he believes the first thing any other programmer is going to want to do is reproduce bugs they aren't experiencing themselves. Epic fail.
Or... he might be talking about the people who are experiencing bugs but who are also developers? What's your point anyway? Do you think he shouldn't even offer the source because obviously nobody else is interested? Or that he should have killed off the project in favour of his son when he was born? His message sounds an entirely reasonable response to the situation to me. "Epic fail" my arse.
Why does every discussion on this site end up in black-and-white? Is it so difficult to see the shades of grey?
Social networking sites, like real-world socialising, should support different social groups. People have different circles, and they interact with them differently. Why must a social networking site mean you have to say and show to the exact same degree to *everyone*? You don't do that in real life so why view a website that way?
I have family, friends, work colleagues as Facebook 'friends'. Do you really believe that I should only put on the lowest-common-denominator information?
Everything I put on Facebook is public. if I want some secrets I keep it off of facebook.
Bully for you. The rest of us have a more subtle approach to social networking. Sometimes we want to share things with some people and not with others. This is hardly strange behaviour.
If you're concerned about your privacy, you should not be using social networking web sites.
Sociable people often want to communicate... The same people would not necessarily want any person in the world to know what their friends know. And people have different circles of friends, with different levels of communication between them. Facebook has gone some way to catering for this, it's just a shame that they have set the defaults so low.
It's not black-and-white, just because someone would be upset that information leaks someway to somewhere it shouldn't be, doesn't mean we shouldn't make a decent stab at getting it as right-as-possible, and accept that there's always a little risk.
Do your friends need reminds about when to breathe? Seriously, you need either smarter friends, or you need to set them up with a different computer.
So what? Maybe you have the time and inclination to rip hundreds of CDs but some people don't. Why bother when there is a reliable network connection and sites willing to stream the same music, *and* introduce you to new things you haven't heard yet, *and* indulge any particular urge you have to listen to something you don't own.
Well... not smoking and being from the UK where we have heavy taxation on tobacco (beyond any cost to society), and a welfare state that catches anyone who might starve... I'm not sure I really understand your point...
The warranty should certainly be voided, but for reasons completely different than given by Apple.
Isn't that part of the point? That the reason they have given is bollocks? The reason you have made up is not what they are saying. The reason they have given is rubbish, therefore they should honour the warranty because there isn't a reason not to.
Of course these are not likely people using their computers for productive things... probably ex-AOLers chatting up people while drinking and smoking. In which case - ??? WTF just get a life already.
Holy crap, what gives you the right to tell other people how they should live their life? Smoking is a legal pleasure that some people choose to indulge in in their own home. Apple's products should be designed to cope with functioning in a normal home environment, and when they don't that's what the warranty is for. Just because it doesn't happen to affect you or I doesn't make it ok.
Tobacco smoke is not a good thing for electronics.
No, but it is often a part of the home.
Apple didn't claim that their products couldn't run in smokey environments, they claimed it couldn't be repaired because of some health and safety rule, which sounds unlikely to be true given there are simple ways of protecting yourself like gloves and a mask...
"Fewer than one in eight British men and just three in 20 women who have applied to BeautifulPeople.com have been accepted, reports the Daily Telegraph."
Heh, perhaps we're all just more successful and don't need to apply to dating websites...?
Urgh, can you imagine the sort of person who applies to a dating website centred entirely around physical appearance...
Yup, everyone likes the freedom to get sick and die at the whim of big business that desperately wants to find any way not to cover you when you need it.
The poor, of course, also don't deserve to live. They're free.
Sounds like the UK ones are massively overengineered, inconvenient, and introduce extra points of failure unnecessarily.
Ah yes, of course, because having lethal and fire-igniting electricity points all around every wall in your house, it's not reasonable to take some safety steps to prevent catastrophic failure. No, not at all...
Slashdot Mirror
Oh piss off.
Funnily enough people from other sovereign states don't react well to being blanket judged by (I'm gonna take a likely stab here) an American. You go fix your problems and leave us to fix ours.
In the scope of unexpected law consequences
is this even surprising? That if you were going to take a copy of someone else's copyrighted material and redistribute it you need the holder's permission? Yes, the internet works like this, but it's the only thing that does, and compared with the speed of legal change, the technology is brand new.
This will simply be ignored and fixed at some point, like all outdated rules. There are more pressing things that need changing.
Agreed. Further, we currently need oil because we burn the vase majority of it. Only 6% of oil is used in manufacturing stuff, the rest is burned for energy. The need for oil is not driven by making plastics, it's for generating energy.
I'm intrigued. You've made a lot of single-line comments to this story telling people that they're wrong without backing up or demonstrating any sort of argument why they are wrong. And then you complain about being modded down. Does it ever occur that perhaps this isn't some big conspiracy, just that you yourself are mistaken? Or perhaps that you're going about your comments in a way that's begging to be ignored? What exactly do you expect the reaction to be when your interaction with people entirely consists of brief and aggressive comments?
I call fake!
RMS has never combed his beard.
If that were true, IBM would still be making 8088-based PCs and selling them for a few bucks.
You say that, but Intel only stopped making the 386 in 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80386
How does that work? The only thing I can imagine worse than not supporting multitasking is supporting it, and then randomly killing background tasks when you run out of resources. I'm sure it doesn't work quite like that, but I can't find more info about exactly how android supports multitasking.
It's something like a task is sent a "you're being backgrounded" message when you switch away from it, and it's up to the app to do whatever makes sense for it to do in that case (usually save all its data ready incase the phone is rebooted or it gets killed while backgrounded). Then the app can be sent a "please stop" or just get killed. Obviously, like any system, resources are finite and it is possible for a running background process to be killed, but that's not normal.
http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/fundamentals.html
You can listen to music at the same time as doing other stuff on the iPhone/iPad
Yes but the only reason is because Apple's own software has special privileges to do so. A 3rd party music playing app cannot, eg Spotify.
So it's obviously possible and desirable in some circumstances, just not permitted by the Apple overlords. Which means that no, Apple have not thought how to "do this properly".
I want to download a large file.
I want to play music.
I want to write a text message.
I suppose two of those could be considered background processes, but since the iPhone doesn't allow that either (see 3rd party music players eg Spotify) then so what? Multitasking, background processes, to the OS they're the same thing, and we aren't allowed to have either.
with my wife hating multitasking. She never closes a thing (tab, application, etc.) and invariably runs out of memory
You're absolutely right, that's the problem with multitasking. But that's because the model that desktop operating systems follow assumes that users will manage memory themselves, it doesn't mean multitasking is a bad thing. And if the OS designers put some thought into it they can solve the problem. eg in Android you never close an application, you just switch to a new one. When the system runs out of resources it politely asks non-running background apps to close (and then if necessary it kills them). Really, there's no good reason I can see why we should care as users about what apps are actually running, that's a system problem.
Don't even try to convince me that downloading a large file from the internet means I shouldn't be able to listen to music, or write a text message.
Flash has its place
Not if you buy an iPad, it seems.
Attacking Apple's products is one thing. Why not create your own open source tablet to compete, and let the marketplace decide?
Because that's not the purpose of the FSF. If the only way to warn the public about a Potential Harmful Thing is to create your own multinational corporation with the engineering power to create open competition, that's somewhat going to limit the informed debate...
Watchdog organisation: "Look, this make of washing machine regularly blows up and kills anyone nearby"
Company's apologist: "People are buying it, so obviously the market is deciding! Create your own non-explosive type and sell it"
Sometimes people don't know all the consequences of the purchase they make, that's what the FSF are trying to do. Guess what, sometimes the market gets it wrong...
Separately from the locked-down issue, do you *honestly* think that people are not going to be a bit surprised at some of the limitations of the device? No Flash therefore no Vimeo, Hulu and lots of websites will be hamstrung? It looks like a laptop without the physical keyboard, people are going to expect similar functionality.
I think though this is exactly the point of the FSF's campaign. To *tell* people this so they can make a choice. Obviously they have a particular bias, but they have to make their point forcefully to counter all the hype. "Go ahead a buy one if you must, but atleast know what you're getting yourself into..."
Such naivety!
1. Author is very lucky he's had so much time on his hands up to the 10 month mark with his son. I've had very little time to myself since mine was born (almost 18 months). I think he's about to learn how much time and effort raising a child takes.
What? You don't know anything about the guy, what his setup is, who he's living with, who else is involved with the child. And yet you're judging him based on a throwaway comment that basically is only there to say: "there's other stuff in my life".
2. I can't believe the author of such a mature and well known product has come up with the line "believe it or not, RT is stable on my PC". Or that he believes the first thing any other programmer is going to want to do is reproduce bugs they aren't experiencing themselves. Epic fail.
Or... he might be talking about the people who are experiencing bugs but who are also developers? What's your point anyway? Do you think he shouldn't even offer the source because obviously nobody else is interested? Or that he should have killed off the project in favour of his son when he was born? His message sounds an entirely reasonable response to the situation to me. "Epic fail" my arse.
Hate to break this to you, but the necessity of IPv6 is based on somewhat larger issues than that...
Why does every discussion on this site end up in black-and-white? Is it so difficult to see the shades of grey?
Social networking sites, like real-world socialising, should support different social groups. People have different circles, and they interact with them differently. Why must a social networking site mean you have to say and show to the exact same degree to *everyone*? You don't do that in real life so why view a website that way?
I have family, friends, work colleagues as Facebook 'friends'. Do you really believe that I should only put on the lowest-common-denominator information?
Not really the new Star Wars movies. Like, Twilight.
I'm afraid it's all to do with the Geek Girl...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/6797-Twilight-of-the-She-Geeks
Bully for you. The rest of us have a more subtle approach to social networking. Sometimes we want to share things with some people and not with others. This is hardly strange behaviour.
Sociable people often want to communicate... The same people would not necessarily want any person in the world to know what their friends know. And people have different circles of friends, with different levels of communication between them. Facebook has gone some way to catering for this, it's just a shame that they have set the defaults so low.
It's not black-and-white, just because someone would be upset that information leaks someway to somewhere it shouldn't be, doesn't mean we shouldn't make a decent stab at getting it as right-as-possible, and accept that there's always a little risk.
So what? Maybe you have the time and inclination to rip hundreds of CDs but some people don't. Why bother when there is a reliable network connection and sites willing to stream the same music, *and* introduce you to new things you haven't heard yet, *and* indulge any particular urge you have to listen to something you don't own.
Well... not smoking and being from the UK where we have heavy taxation on tobacco (beyond any cost to society), and a welfare state that catches anyone who might starve... I'm not sure I really understand your point...
Isn't that part of the point? That the reason they have given is bollocks? The reason you have made up is not what they are saying. The reason they have given is rubbish, therefore they should honour the warranty because there isn't a reason not to.
It's not part of a normal household *environment* though, somewhat harder to avoid.
And as you've pointed out, they don't mention smoke at all in their excludes, so they don't get to void the warranty on it.
Holy crap, what gives you the right to tell other people how they should live their life? Smoking is a legal pleasure that some people choose to indulge in in their own home. Apple's products should be designed to cope with functioning in a normal home environment, and when they don't that's what the warranty is for. Just because it doesn't happen to affect you or I doesn't make it ok.
No, but it is often a part of the home.
Apple didn't claim that their products couldn't run in smokey environments, they claimed it couldn't be repaired because of some health and safety rule, which sounds unlikely to be true given there are simple ways of protecting yourself like gloves and a mask...
Heh, perhaps we're all just more successful and don't need to apply to dating websites...?
Urgh, can you imagine the sort of person who applies to a dating website centred entirely around physical appearance...
Yup, everyone likes the freedom to get sick and die at the whim of big business that desperately wants to find any way not to cover you when you need it.
The poor, of course, also don't deserve to live. They're free.
Sounds like the UK ones are massively overengineered, inconvenient, and introduce extra points of failure unnecessarily.
Ah yes, of course, because having lethal and fire-igniting electricity points all around every wall in your house, it's not reasonable to take some safety steps to prevent catastrophic failure. No, not at all...