Of course it's strictly a logical fallacy to claim it as a certainty, but it is still a valid argument to say that it's highly likely that it would have been done. The question has to be answered as to why no one has ever done something, if it's really possible?
I don't know, imagine me saying that cheese can be used to turn people into unicorns. It would be a perfectly valid criticism to ask why no one has yet done this.
Because Apple is the one that only allows you to run Apple-approved apps, and is trying to even make it illegal to get round that.
Now yes, it's true that a lot of phones are locked down to some degree (and is why I am glad of the appearance of netbooks) - but that doesn't excuse Apple for being even worse!
Or he could get a better computer and run Windows 7 on it. A better computer will always be better, obviously, but that doesn't change his point about how good the operating system is on given hardware.
With the rate of progress, netbooks will soon be comparable to today's desktops. Even "accessing the internet and that's about it" will require increasing resources, which, supposedly, Windows 7 will be better at handling.
Sure, XP will still do fine. I still run Windows 2000 on my desktop after all. And you can "access the Internet" on an Amiga 500 if you want.
By the same token, I propose that banning the act of jailbreaking an Iphone isn't sufficient. Following the logic of your nuclear weapon example, mere possession of an Iphone should be banned!
(Of course I don't really believe that - but it would serve Apple right. If they're going to fearmonger about Iphones being a terrorist threat in an underhand attempt to ban people from using phones they have bought, then I'd love to see the Government turn round and ban Apple from selling Iphones at all. In the meantime, I suggest using a phone that Just Works, and doesn't need jailbreaking.)
You miss the crucial point - it would be if MS made it so that Windows 7 could only run apps that were from their store, and hence all apps required approval from MS.
Yes, there'd be an uproar, as well as ridicule and criticism. But Apple? Oh that's fine. Some even spin it as a plus point, I've seen.
I have to hack it everytime I want a feature to work, and then unhack everytime I want support for the device I paid good money for? Not exactly Just Works, is it?
If the grocer stopped you buying the app/tobacco from another store, then yes it would be news.
If the grocer had daily free advertising on Appledot as if he was the only grocer, or the best grocer ever, then yes it would be news to point out flaws.
Not only is the burden upon you to show that the Iphone phone's internal memory is faster than the Touch phone, there is also the question of what impact this is. How many applications occupy more than 512MB?
Without that, your comparison is woefully incomplete.
So how about you provide them, if you want to say the phone is better?
Yes, it doesn't matter than the OP provided evidence of another phone beating it hands down - I'm just going to claim it's better because it is!
If you want to counter the OP's post, you need to respond with evidence, rather than just throwing assertions. What usability features does it have? Or give us example workflows of how easy it is to achieve something on each phone?
I'll start with an example - if I want to copy some text and paste it elsewhere, how easily does the UI allow this?
Well when we have articles every few days about a phone from HTC, Samsung etc, feel free to complain about the phone in those articles where it would be on-topic.
In which case, it's also wrong to miss out all the actual 3D engines that were around before Doom - there were plenty of polygon based 3D engines without texture mapping in the 80s and early 90s.
It obviously restricts his rights if he can't use it beyond the 30 days. The fact that he might be able to get round it is neither here nor there - you've still imposed an extra legal restriction (if it didn't matter, then why would you have the restriction there?)
Good point, and one that's worth remembering when someone says "we should do the same thing to their citizens".
Such an act wouldn't deter the US Government at all, and indeed they'd probably welcome it. Two countries spying on each other's citizens, and then they can share the data ("new laws passed to allow greater cooperation in fighting terr0r"). Win-win for them. Lose-lose for people.
What they should really do is have laws that just target the foreign politicians;)
I don't know which country you are from, but note that the UK is happily doing that of its own accord. Remember, the EU is still made up by individual countries (and it is no more or less democratic - actually I'd argue the EU is more democratic, due to use of PR in elections).
I also note that in the UK, it's our unelected house that is the only thing slowing the authoritarian laws passed by the elected Government.
Basically everything that no national government would be able to put into a law, can be done in the EU.
I'll bite - such as what?
There is no such a thing as this annoying democratic process.
How is it annoying? The Labour Government have a majority. They want a law, it passes. At no time is it put to a referendum, and I don't know any European country that does do this. The politicians do what they want, whether they were elected or not.
The phone's output is wearable. Not anywhere as useful due to it being audio only, sure, but we don't define computing by the presence of a screen. Some phones have voice recognition.
It's a cool device, but so are smartphones - they're all example of portable mobile computers that you carry around with you. I'm not sure that "wearing" is a useful qualifier, or anything more than a matter of definitions. Consider, I "wear" my trousers, but I don't "wear" the phone in my trouser pocket - yet if I tied a bit of string and wrapped it round my waist, I'd then be "wearing" it. Yet little has changed from a practical or functional point of view.
Note that even if they release the code, that doesn't help them - they've still violated copyright law. Just as if someone is sued for sharing mp3s - saying that you'll stop won't help you.
Why aren't they being sued for $150,000 per violation?
I agree that a fair use defence sounds dubious, but he didn't "upload his screener of the Transformers to 15,000 of his closest friends on the P2P nets."
And the point is that should be up to the jury to decide. What's the point of "trial by jury" if a judge is allowed to make up his mind on the case, before the trial has even started?!
Slashdot Mirror
Now I know what Apple fans mean by this "Just Works" business: Apple - Just [have to break the law in order to get basic functionality that] Works.
Of course it's strictly a logical fallacy to claim it as a certainty, but it is still a valid argument to say that it's highly likely that it would have been done. The question has to be answered as to why no one has ever done something, if it's really possible?
I don't know, imagine me saying that cheese can be used to turn people into unicorns. It would be a perfectly valid criticism to ask why no one has yet done this.
Objection!
Did you get approval from Apple to run your lawyer's app?
Why single out Apple products.
Because Apple is the one that only allows you to run Apple-approved apps, and is trying to even make it illegal to get round that.
Now yes, it's true that a lot of phones are locked down to some degree (and is why I am glad of the appearance of netbooks) - but that doesn't excuse Apple for being even worse!
Or he could get a better computer and run Windows 7 on it. A better computer will always be better, obviously, but that doesn't change his point about how good the operating system is on given hardware.
With the rate of progress, netbooks will soon be comparable to today's desktops. Even "accessing the internet and that's about it" will require increasing resources, which, supposedly, Windows 7 will be better at handling.
Sure, XP will still do fine. I still run Windows 2000 on my desktop after all. And you can "access the Internet" on an Amiga 500 if you want.
By the same token, I propose that banning the act of jailbreaking an Iphone isn't sufficient. Following the logic of your nuclear weapon example, mere possession of an Iphone should be banned!
(Of course I don't really believe that - but it would serve Apple right. If they're going to fearmonger about Iphones being a terrorist threat in an underhand attempt to ban people from using phones they have bought, then I'd love to see the Government turn round and ban Apple from selling Iphones at all. In the meantime, I suggest using a phone that Just Works, and doesn't need jailbreaking.)
You miss the crucial point - it would be if MS made it so that Windows 7 could only run apps that were from their store, and hence all apps required approval from MS.
Yes, there'd be an uproar, as well as ridicule and criticism. But Apple? Oh that's fine. Some even spin it as a plus point, I've seen.
$99!
I have to hack it everytime I want a feature to work, and then unhack everytime I want support for the device I paid good money for? Not exactly Just Works, is it?
This is what they mean by the great usability. Apple - it Just Works!
If the grocer stopped you buying the app/tobacco from another store, then yes it would be news.
If the grocer had daily free advertising on Appledot as if he was the only grocer, or the best grocer ever, then yes it would be news to point out flaws.
Not only is the burden upon you to show that the Iphone phone's internal memory is faster than the Touch phone, there is also the question of what impact this is. How many applications occupy more than 512MB?
Without that, your comparison is woefully incomplete.
So how about you provide them, if you want to say the phone is better?
Yes, it doesn't matter than the OP provided evidence of another phone beating it hands down - I'm just going to claim it's better because it is!
If you want to counter the OP's post, you need to respond with evidence, rather than just throwing assertions. What usability features does it have? Or give us example workflows of how easy it is to achieve something on each phone?
I'll start with an example - if I want to copy some text and paste it elsewhere, how easily does the UI allow this?
"Is greater than", as used in math, does not have the same meaning as "is better than".
Maths? Clearly he was writing C++, and had overloaded the > operator to compare better-ness...
Well when we have articles every few days about a phone from HTC, Samsung etc, feel free to complain about the phone in those articles where it would be on-topic.
In which case, it's also wrong to miss out all the actual 3D engines that were around before Doom - there were plenty of polygon based 3D engines without texture mapping in the 80s and early 90s.
It obviously restricts his rights if he can't use it beyond the 30 days. The fact that he might be able to get round it is neither here nor there - you've still imposed an extra legal restriction (if it didn't matter, then why would you have the restriction there?)
Is it absurd when a random company can't sell their cola as "Pepsi", even if it looks and tastes the same?
Sandwich doesn't have a regional trademark, btw.
Good point, and one that's worth remembering when someone says "we should do the same thing to their citizens".
Such an act wouldn't deter the US Government at all, and indeed they'd probably welcome it. Two countries spying on each other's citizens, and then they can share the data ("new laws passed to allow greater cooperation in fighting terr0r"). Win-win for them. Lose-lose for people.
What they should really do is have laws that just target the foreign politicians ;)
I don't know which country you are from, but note that the UK is happily doing that of its own accord. Remember, the EU is still made up by individual countries (and it is no more or less democratic - actually I'd argue the EU is more democratic, due to use of PR in elections).
I also note that in the UK, it's our unelected house that is the only thing slowing the authoritarian laws passed by the elected Government.
Basically everything that no national government would be able to put into a law, can be done in the EU.
I'll bite - such as what?
There is no such a thing as this annoying democratic process.
How is it annoying? The Labour Government have a majority. They want a law, it passes. At no time is it put to a referendum, and I don't know any European country that does do this. The politicians do what they want, whether they were elected or not.
The phone's output is wearable. Not anywhere as useful due to it being audio only, sure, but we don't define computing by the presence of a screen. Some phones have voice recognition.
It's a cool device, but so are smartphones - they're all example of portable mobile computers that you carry around with you. I'm not sure that "wearing" is a useful qualifier, or anything more than a matter of definitions. Consider, I "wear" my trousers, but I don't "wear" the phone in my trouser pocket - yet if I tied a bit of string and wrapped it round my waist, I'd then be "wearing" it. Yet little has changed from a practical or functional point of view.
Just out of interest, how many copyright violations have been successfully challenged and won?
Fixed that for you. Why should the licence matter, when they didn't follow it? And the answer to your question is: lots.
Note that even if they release the code, that doesn't help them - they've still violated copyright law. Just as if someone is sued for sharing mp3s - saying that you'll stop won't help you.
Why aren't they being sued for $150,000 per violation?
I agree that a fair use defence sounds dubious, but he didn't "upload his screener of the Transformers to 15,000 of his closest friends on the P2P nets."
And the point is that should be up to the jury to decide. What's the point of "trial by jury" if a judge is allowed to make up his mind on the case, before the trial has even started?!