Apple may not have been the first to do this, but they were the ones who popularised it. They also make it easy: no need for complex buttons to press, Apple have pioneered the "open-hand" gesture, which causes the device to drop, and initiate destruction after a short time period.
Other products may win out on paper in terms of pure feature lists, but it's the attention to little details, such as the seamless integration of a music player and a product that blows up in your face.
There are already laws against harrassment. If someone is getting upset about mere speech that doesn't constitute harrassment, then they either need to learn to get used to it, or not go on the Internet if it's so upsetting for them.
I've never heard of anyone having to sign anything when given a refund (for whatever reason), let alone not being able to tell anyone about the simple existence of it (see later - it's not just the terms, but "agree that you will keep the terms and existence of this settlement agreement completely confidential").
Did anyone claim "they can't say the iPod exploded"?
Was there something newsworthy here that I missed?
I find it ironic that when there'd bad publicity for Apple, we hear pleading that it's not newsworthy. Well, every Iphone story we get day after day isn't really newsworthy - the Apple publicity works both ways.
So develop for a particular type of Android phone that meets the requirements. There are plenty of them about (though we never hear about them on News For Nerds). And you'll know exactly what their spec is.
Btw, different versions of the Iphone have had different amounts of memory, as well as different processors (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone ), so what you say isn't true anyway.
On what basis do you say that? The first question is whether it's closer to Quake than original Doom - does it feature a true 3D engine (as opposed to a 2D with height component), and use polygons for models as opposed to billboards? It's hard to tell from the screenshot.
With Doom 3, you're talking about things like per-pixel lighting, bump mapping, and real-time dynamic shadows. I can't see any evidence of that in the screenshot.
And whichever it's "closer" to, it's still nowhere near Doom 3 quality.
To be fair, the money grab has been a common theme for mobiles years before the Iphone (write a trivial application, and charge money for it). But yes, the Iphone hype takes this to new heights, as simply adding "On your Iphone" will get tonnes of free advertising.
You're confusing things - it's not "Microsoft are a monopoly because they did this", it's "Microsoft are a monopoly, and they did this". Being a monopoly is about market share (well that's one definition - I'm not sure off hand what criteria the EU use, but the point is that Microsoft qualify, and Apple aren't even close).
Last, how is it a monopoly when the product (ie) is non profit (afaik)?
That's not really relevant, but anyway: Microsoft have a monopoly on operating systems, which they do sell.
When copyright law prohibit some kid from downloading unlicensed music it is unfair, but when copyright law allows them to bypass the normal rules of academic honestly, it is all the rage.
When copyright law applies to sharing a few mp3s, it's worth millions of dollars in fine, but when company profits from other people's work, and bypasses the normal rules of academic honesty, it is all the rage.
This settlement is even more sad that the RIAA settlements. In the RIAA cases, there is likely no long term damage.
Except for someone being financially ruined for life, sure.
In this case the lesson taught to kids is to attack those who are trying to help you, and that self serving immediate needs are paramount to long term goals.
The lesson is: you own the copyright to your own work, and perhaps private companies shouldn't be using other people's work to profit from, without permission. Unless you are seriously suggesting it's one rule for the RIAA, and another for individuals?
I'm not sure how that is "attacking those who are trying to help you". If they're doing such a helpful service, then why not ask for permission?
Well it's the going rate asked for by the RIAA. I wondered why they settled - if a few mp3s can result in a fine of millions of dollars, why not the same for some papers?
(Disclaimer: No, I don't think that sharing mp3s, or papers, should result in a fine of millions, the issue here is about consistency in law. Also, I think it's reasonable to have more sympathy with copying done for free, versus someone trying to make a profit from someone else's work as is the case with TurnItIn - if the RIAA was only suing people who were selling pirated CDs etc, I doubt anyone would care.)
Those probes cost many millions of dollars to get there (and with a human in orbit it would cost billions more), no one on Earth is going to allow any astronaut to be making split second decisions about rolling over into a ditch or checking out a particularly interesting rock.
Firstly, the issue isn't "rolling over into a ditch or checking out a particularly interesting rock" where a 10 minute lag wouldn't matter anyway. The issue is cases where quick decisions would be required, for example during landing. Furthermore, we already let humans make split second decisions - except at the moment, those decisions can only be made with a 10 minute lag. Humans were controlling things in Apollo, and you can bet they'd be in control if there were men landing on Mars. Yes, computers have improved immensely, but AI is still a long way off replacing human control.
Anyhow, I'm not saying that men landing on or going to Mars should or shouldn't happen - I don't think either of us are qualified to know enough about the costs and benefits. I'm simply pointing out it is absurd and misleading to summarise the issue as not being bothered to wait an extra 10 minutes.
What we need is better robotics and AI for these missions and more of them not a very expensive human fly by.... so I'd be all for ditching manned exploration altogether
In that case, you should be glad in that this is a proposal in your direction - rather than all the expense of a manned mission landing on Mars (which is the current plan), men will simply be in the orbiter, leaving robots to explore the surface. You are also against the OP that I was replying to, and many if not most of the commenters on this thread - we're in agreement that perhaps sending men to land on Mars is perhaps a waste.
I'm amused that this plan gets criticised from both directions: those who do want manned missions on Mars, and those who don't want manned missions at all...
You're right about the Express being what it is. There are some other sources confirming the idea of "24-hour supervision", and encouraging other parents to snoop on them:
Er - and where do this "work" come from, if they are unemployed? Promising to solve unemployment by "giving people jobs" is like me promising to solve world poverty by "giving people money".
It's already the case that people have to take jobs if they are available. This new plan makes no sense (and it was the Conservatives' idea first - amusingly Labour rightly slagged it off, yet now for some reason they've adopted it for themselves...)
in order to save 10 minutes that it takes to contact rowers.
I don't think the issue is "saving 10 minutes", the issue is lag.
Think computer games - a bad lag doesn't mean "You have to wait a few seconds longer to play the game", it makes the game unplayable.
From TFA:
"Instructions from controllers on Earth now take several minutes to reach craft on Mars. But astronauts on a Martian moon could operate robots on the planet in real time."
It's not 10 minutes, it's 10 minutes for every single instruction and response, as opposed to operating in real time. Not only would this speed things up by a massive factor, it allows the possibility of human intervention or control to prevent things going wrong (e.g., a human controlled landing).
The whole point of space travel is to permanently get humans to other places in the Solar System, Galaxy and Universe other than Earth. It is not a test to see how far we can throw a rock - it is a test to see how close we are to the colonization of our solar system.
Why does this stop that? You can colonise space as well as other planets. And building the infrastructure to send men to orbit other planets will still provide a step towards one day colonising those planets.
Except the success of the Wii is surely to do with the controller - "hardware", last I checked. I don't think that has anything to do with the software and services mentioned in TFS.
Indeed this is the key - normally the idea of people making money from your work isn't an issue, as you could just do that to them. So it's only feasible
But here - where would you re-upload it offering it for free? Only apps that have Apple's permission can be distributed on the Iphone, and would they accept your app on the app store, or would they refuse it thinking it was a duplicated app? How much investigation would they put into seeing who was the original author, or whether one work was derived from the effort? And is it in the spirit of the GPL to have the control of distribution locked up in the hands of one company?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have the link to the news story of these other companies doing this?
It Just Explodes.
Apple may not have been the first to do this, but they were the ones who popularised it. They also make it easy: no need for complex buttons to press, Apple have pioneered the "open-hand" gesture, which causes the device to drop, and initiate destruction after a short time period.
Other products may win out on paper in terms of pure feature lists, but it's the attention to little details, such as the seamless integration of a music player and a product that blows up in your face.
Perhaps now we'll see an angry mob turning up and throwing their Ipods at Apple HQ...
I see that it exploded :) Where does anyone claim that the terms stated he wouldn't be able to say it exploded?
There are already laws against harrassment. If someone is getting upset about mere speech that doesn't constitute harrassment, then they either need to learn to get used to it, or not go on the Internet if it's so upsetting for them.
I've never heard of anyone having to sign anything when given a refund (for whatever reason), let alone not being able to tell anyone about the simple existence of it (see later - it's not just the terms, but "agree that you will keep the terms and existence of this settlement agreement completely confidential").
Did anyone claim "they can't say the iPod exploded"?
Was there something newsworthy here that I missed?
I find it ironic that when there'd bad publicity for Apple, we hear pleading that it's not newsworthy. Well, every Iphone story we get day after day isn't really newsworthy - the Apple publicity works both ways.
However, such settlement terms are really par for the course.
Do you have examples of other companies doing this? Note, he wasn't asking for compensation, just a refund.
So develop for a particular type of Android phone that meets the requirements. There are plenty of them about (though we never hear about them on News For Nerds). And you'll know exactly what their spec is.
Btw, different versions of the Iphone have had different amounts of memory, as well as different processors (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone ), so what you say isn't true anyway.
On what basis do you say that? The first question is whether it's closer to Quake than original Doom - does it feature a true 3D engine (as opposed to a 2D with height component), and use polygons for models as opposed to billboards? It's hard to tell from the screenshot.
With Doom 3, you're talking about things like per-pixel lighting, bump mapping, and real-time dynamic shadows. I can't see any evidence of that in the screenshot.
And whichever it's "closer" to, it's still nowhere near Doom 3 quality.
Yeah - for years I've always browsed the Apple stories at -1, as moderation is so broken. Too many people using -1 for "I disagree".
To be fair, the money grab has been a common theme for mobiles years before the Iphone (write a trivial application, and charge money for it). But yes, the Iphone hype takes this to new heights, as simply adding "On your Iphone" will get tonnes of free advertising.
Witness this gem - $0.99 for an app to display an animated spinning ring. But not only that, they also get free advertising in national media (by the tax-funded BBC no less, who are supposed to not run adverts).
When I get a chance, I'll knock up a quick Windows app to do the same, and ask the BBC if they'll give me free advertising for it.
Perhaps you should practice what you preach, and switch your computer off.
Because Apple aren't a monopoly.
You're confusing things - it's not "Microsoft are a monopoly because they did this", it's "Microsoft are a monopoly, and they did this". Being a monopoly is about market share (well that's one definition - I'm not sure off hand what criteria the EU use, but the point is that Microsoft qualify, and Apple aren't even close).
Last, how is it a monopoly when the product (ie) is non profit (afaik)?
That's not really relevant, but anyway: Microsoft have a monopoly on operating systems, which they do sell.
When copyright law prohibit some kid from downloading unlicensed music it is unfair, but when copyright law allows them to bypass the normal rules of academic honestly, it is all the rage.
When copyright law applies to sharing a few mp3s, it's worth millions of dollars in fine, but when company profits from other people's work, and bypasses the normal rules of academic honesty, it is all the rage.
This settlement is even more sad that the RIAA settlements. In the RIAA cases, there is likely no long term damage.
Except for someone being financially ruined for life, sure.
In this case the lesson taught to kids is to attack those who are trying to help you, and that self serving immediate needs are paramount to long term goals.
The lesson is: you own the copyright to your own work, and perhaps private companies shouldn't be using other people's work to profit from, without permission. Unless you are seriously suggesting it's one rule for the RIAA, and another for individuals?
I'm not sure how that is "attacking those who are trying to help you". If they're doing such a helpful service, then why not ask for permission?
Well it's the going rate asked for by the RIAA. I wondered why they settled - if a few mp3s can result in a fine of millions of dollars, why not the same for some papers?
(Disclaimer: No, I don't think that sharing mp3s, or papers, should result in a fine of millions, the issue here is about consistency in law. Also, I think it's reasonable to have more sympathy with copying done for free, versus someone trying to make a profit from someone else's work as is the case with TurnItIn - if the RIAA was only suing people who were selling pirated CDs etc, I doubt anyone would care.)
Those probes cost many millions of dollars to get there (and with a human in orbit it would cost billions more), no one on Earth is going to allow any astronaut to be making split second decisions about rolling over into a ditch or checking out a particularly interesting rock.
Firstly, the issue isn't "rolling over into a ditch or checking out a particularly interesting rock" where a 10 minute lag wouldn't matter anyway. The issue is cases where quick decisions would be required, for example during landing. Furthermore, we already let humans make split second decisions - except at the moment, those decisions can only be made with a 10 minute lag. Humans were controlling things in Apollo, and you can bet they'd be in control if there were men landing on Mars. Yes, computers have improved immensely, but AI is still a long way off replacing human control.
Anyhow, I'm not saying that men landing on or going to Mars should or shouldn't happen - I don't think either of us are qualified to know enough about the costs and benefits. I'm simply pointing out it is absurd and misleading to summarise the issue as not being bothered to wait an extra 10 minutes.
What we need is better robotics and AI for these missions and more of them not a very expensive human fly by. ... so I'd be all for ditching manned exploration altogether
In that case, you should be glad in that this is a proposal in your direction - rather than all the expense of a manned mission landing on Mars (which is the current plan), men will simply be in the orbiter, leaving robots to explore the surface. You are also against the OP that I was replying to, and many if not most of the commenters on this thread - we're in agreement that perhaps sending men to land on Mars is perhaps a waste.
I'm amused that this plan gets criticised from both directions: those who do want manned missions on Mars, and those who don't want manned missions at all...
Good idea. I know, let's vote here on Slashdot whether Snaller (147050) should be allowed to breed.
You're right about the Express being what it is. There are some other sources confirming the idea of "24-hour supervision", and encouraging other parents to snoop on them:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5888162/Worst-families-in-Britain-will-be-put-in-sin-bins.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/terence-blacker/terence-blacker-the-mad-democracy-of-snooping-1759137.html
Although I can't find any other sources about CCTV specifically.
Some more general information at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8165209.stm
Er - and where do this "work" come from, if they are unemployed? Promising to solve unemployment by "giving people jobs" is like me promising to solve world poverty by "giving people money".
It's already the case that people have to take jobs if they are available. This new plan makes no sense (and it was the Conservatives' idea first - amusingly Labour rightly slagged it off, yet now for some reason they've adopted it for themselves...)
in order to save 10 minutes that it takes to contact rowers.
I don't think the issue is "saving 10 minutes", the issue is lag.
Think computer games - a bad lag doesn't mean "You have to wait a few seconds longer to play the game", it makes the game unplayable.
From TFA:
"Instructions from controllers on Earth now take several minutes to reach craft on Mars. But astronauts on a Martian moon could operate robots on the planet in real time."
It's not 10 minutes, it's 10 minutes for every single instruction and response, as opposed to operating in real time. Not only would this speed things up by a massive factor, it allows the possibility of human intervention or control to prevent things going wrong (e.g., a human controlled landing).
The whole point of space travel is to permanently get humans to other places in the Solar System, Galaxy and Universe other than Earth.
It is not a test to see how far we can throw a rock - it is a test to see how close we are to the colonization of our solar system.
Why does this stop that? You can colonise space as well as other planets. And building the infrastructure to send men to orbit other planets will still provide a step towards one day colonising those planets.
Help! Help! I'm a white male being oppressed!
Or we could quit the Daily Mail style hysterics, and perhaps provide some references to support your claims of this happening?
I'll bite. Citation needed - references for where this happened please? Or were you just making up straw men?
When the hell did Slashdot turn into The Daily Mail?
Agree or disagree with the story all you like, but please quit whining about alleged so-called "PC brigades".
Except the success of the Wii is surely to do with the controller - "hardware", last I checked. I don't think that has anything to do with the software and services mentioned in TFS.
Indeed this is the key - normally the idea of people making money from your work isn't an issue, as you could just do that to them. So it's only feasible
But here - where would you re-upload it offering it for free? Only apps that have Apple's permission can be distributed on the Iphone, and would they accept your app on the app store, or would they refuse it thinking it was a duplicated app? How much investigation would they put into seeing who was the original author, or whether one work was derived from the effort? And is it in the spirit of the GPL to have the control of distribution locked up in the hands of one company?