Complete nonsense. Symbian is a smartphone OS. The term "smartphone" is rather ill-defined anyway, but I fail to see how phones like the 5800 don't count. What makes the Iphones smartphones? What does the IphoneOS have that Symbian doesn't - can they multitask yet? Finally got copy and paste, did we? Still waiting for Flash and Java? Can you run 3rd party apps of your choosing, like I'd expect on a smartphone rather than a locked down feature phone?
Even for their low end S40 (which is what you perhaps were thinking of), such phones can access the Internet and run apps. This has been the way for S40 and other "feature" phones for five years or more. Can you give me a definition of "smartphone" that includes the original Iphone, but not these feature phones?
The only reason S40 isn't a "smartphone" is brand marketing - Nokia label S60 and Maemo as "smartphones" to distinguish it from S40. But the old distinction between smartphones and dumbphones is long gone - almost all phones today, including S40, are "smart".
But yes, you're right that when people want a phone, they buy Nokia. When people want to brag about having an expensive phone that does the same, but with a nice Apple logo, they buy Iphone. It's the designer label of the technology world - the rest of us know you're paying extra for nothing more than a logo.
It is pretty much dead as a platform being developed for.
Citation needed?
As TFS says, Iphone just gets all the hype - perhaps because of the attention of it being for hobbyists rather than serious development, or maybe it's just the usual way the media give disproportionate coverage to anything that Apple does (just look at the Ipad).
Honestly, if OS X and Windows were released today, even with the same 10%/90% market shares repsectively, we'd have the media hyping about nothing but OS X, with Windows barely getting a mention at all.
I can confirm that Symbian/Maemo phones already support Qt, as the installer will just download the libraries as required. Future phones will include libraries as standard though, I believe.
Certainly works on my 5800 fine, and that's a two year old phone now. The Qt SDK has now made it out of beta, so now is the right time to start developing:) I'm new to it myself, and I'm impressed by the SDK, Qt is a very nice set of libraries.
I appreciate the idea that Android is good in that it's supported by multiple manufacturers. Though the same is still true of Symbian anyway (e.g., Samsung at least). Your argument is better directed at platforms like IphoneOS or OS X, which can only be made by Apple.
Also note that the development environment is Qt. You can cross-compile the same code to Symbian and Meago (Meemo in future). Oh, and also Windows, Linux and OS X. Dead end, you say?
Except for the 50% of the high end market that use it. Not to mention Nokia having by far most market share. Yeah, no one cares about it, obviously it's just like COBOL.
Nonsense. I don't see anyone claiming that they'll only repeal what's proposed on this site. They already have a list of candidate laws to repeal. This site is just one additional method for people to feed ideas too.
And, if current LD coalition behaviour is a model for future LD behaviour, this will become:
Selectively pick and reinterpret, proposing instead a compromise which no majority wants.
Untrue. Whilst I accept that some people dislike AV more than FPTP, this is not true for everyone. Even though it doesn't solve the problem of being non-proportional, I would still favour a system that better reflects what people vote for, rather than plurality voting which has many flaws.
If you think it "will inevitably be voted against in any referendum", then the same would certainly happen with any PR system.
The fallacy of argument to moderation is a problem in politics, but I don't see any evidence of it being specifically a problem with the Lib Dems, this freedom bill, or this website. The Goverment already repealed ID cards and biometric passports - there was no compromise.
We know that both the Lib Dems and Tories (both parties in the coalition) have promised a bill to repeal some laws - it was in their manifestos. Sure, they might lie, but I think it's quite reasonable to believe they will have some form of "freedom bill" (they've already repealed ID cards and biometric passports, for example).
This site might be "theatre" in the sense that they already have their list of ideas, and this site is only there to add support to it - e.g., "We're repealing the Digital Economy Act because it's one of the top of the list, and we're doing what people want!" But is that a bad thing? I would be very happy if they repealed the DEA, and if this site gives them extra support to do that, I'm happy to support the site. Even though technically it might be "theatre", the site still has a use in giving them extra support for repealing those laws.
I wouldn't want a site where the top ideas automatically get repealed, anyway - direct democracy has it's downsides, as well as the problem that online polls/voting can be very unreliable anyway. But having a site that helps to feed ideas that politicians might not have thought of could be of use.
I agree - just because one can strum a few chords of simplistic pop songs, doesn't mean it's easy to work out the music in general, especially of genres that aren't so simple. Some people have that talent, but it's rare.
But the easiest way of making a windows user envious is to use a mac
Something that's more closed than Windows and Linux?
No, we're not envious. You might think that we should be envious, just like the guy who brags about his expensive designer clothes or Iphone, but the rest of us don't actually care.
Really, copyright debate boils down to free-loaders demanding free access to everything, and copyright holders demanding restrictions on everything.
Nice straw man there. Lots of people argue in the middle ground. Even The Pirate Party calls for some copyrights, but with a much reduced limit, as you suggest also.
A previous poster made the point was made that you can get prepaid credit cards from walmart.
So why didn't he point that out, instead of ignoring her simple requests for help, and responding with:
"Well, that's a stupid question, Brenna."
And then continuing to lecture her (even though she'd long since stopped offering his sheet music)?
I've never seen such pre-paid cards, nor have I seen one. You're also assuming she's in the US (I note she uses the British spelling "theatre"...)
This still doesn't answer the question of how she gets the money - she may be too young to work for all we know, and says her parents don't support her theatre. Heaven forbid those unruly teenagers break the law by wanting to learn to sing!
He was simply asking nicely for people not to share his music illegally.
And she did:
I've taken down your music
She then simply asked nicely in return:
I need the sheet music to "I'd Give It All For You" but thanks to your little stunt, I can't get it. And I cannot just go to the store and buy it. My parents don't support my theatre all that much and they won't buy it for me. And I need it pronto. If you're actually Jason Robert Brown, what can you do to help me with my situation?
A teenager, trying to learn to sing in theatre, without money, without the necessary credit card to even buy it (as she points out) and without support from her parents. His response?
Well, that's a stupid question, Brenna.
(After he already knew she hated that name, too.)
This guy wasn't asking nicely at all. The teenager responded to his request, asked nicely for help in return, and simply got insulted back and told to pay up - even though she had no way to order it online anyway.
I'm not sure what the point of this article was. If he thinks he was getting on his moral lecturing high horse, and assumed everyone would agree, he's mistaken.
I'm not sure she's missing any point. She's arguing her point of view on the issue, just as many do here on Slashdot. And she makes some very insightful points, I might add, whilst the author just carries on the same old tune of trying to force a teenager to pay him money just because she's learning to sing.
He started out the experiment by asking nicely, and many responded (even though he hadn't followed the legal process of the DMCA) - but, even though he may have the law on his side, perhaps he could show some tolerance in return?
For the record - yes, if a teenager wanted to look at code I'd written and owned the copyright to so he or she could learn to program, I'd be quite happy for that.
In particular, if it was trade - i.e., they were selling it - I can see it as being more of a problem. Though the author writes:
(I put "trade" in quotes because of course it's not really a trade, since nobody's giving anything up in exchange for what they get. It's just making illegal unauthorized copies, and calling it "trade" legitimizes it in an utterly fraudulent way.)
He seems to think that copying for free it makes it worse! He implies that if they were buying it from those people, it would be okay...
As for the story - well, I think that copyright should cover sheet music. But I'm not sure I have much sympathy for him harrassing a teenager. We're not talking about someone freeloading mp3s to listen to, she's trying to learn music so that she can learn to sing or play.
Heaven forbid, that we should have those immoral teenagers breaking the law by singing unauthorised songs! They should go back to watching TV all day or hanging around on street corners. Perhaps the owners of the rights to Happy Birthday are going to step in?
The story is funny, yes - but as for getting over yourselves, I think that's got to be pointed at the people here taking it seriously. The irony: what do you think the popular image of the stereotypical Slashdot geek is?
What would be nice is a Linux desktop in your hand, free to code on and see the hardware, flip it over and you have a packet pushing networked phone. Linked by a data network you pay for, not legal teams looking down at your mobile desktop. Closed is great if you have to use it or get it for work, but we seem to have a real effort to trap developers in an almost free until you read the fine print walled gardens.
"However, some technologies which were historically included in Symbian OS / S60 platform releases were distributed under specific commercial licenses and hence could not be included in the initial Symbian Foundation codebase. Essentially Nokia have contributed everything they can to the Symbian Foundation but some technologies are licensed from other companies and hence can't be included in the platform until discussions with those companies have been completed."
I would hope that the survey would still count consulting, writing books or being self-employed as having a job, rather than still looking for a job. If yes, you can drop the "Look at me, I'm different" - you still work for a living, even if your job is writing books. If no, then the survey is rather flawed.
You may have the advantage of higher pay, but the disadvantage of lacking stability. Many employed people can work from home, so that's not a clear distinction.
More likely, some 17% of CS graduates are holding out for some programming job or higher, whereas an arts or women's studies graduate quickly comes to terms with getting a job as a receptionist or even a McDonald's job.
Indeed. It also doesn't have to be low paid or unskilled jobs - it may well be that people who have studied subjects like history or English are going into jobs where they use little of their degree, but are highly paid/skilled jobs (e.g., management in companies).
There are really different questions here: What degree gives you more job opportunities? And which graduates happen to be most employable?
With subjects like computer science, I'd say there's a far better link between the subject area and jobs that are available (other examples would be maths, law, medicine). I did maths and work now as a programmer (maths is at 10%, sorry if I'm stealing your computer jobs!), but would I have got my job if I had done a completely different degree? Quite likely not.
On the other hand, if a history graduate gets a job in a company, unless they're working as a historian, it seems more possible that they could have still got that job with a completely different degree. It's a question of causation - the sorts of people who do arts degree might be more employable than computer science, but that doesn't mean that doing an arts degree makes you more employable.
The argument isn't about straight people vs. gay people, it's about what the definition of "marriage" is.
It's about the benefits that the Government gives. If it does so in a discriminatory fashion, then it's discrimination. I don't care what your definitions are.
Not sure what Marx has to do with this. In general, I note you are unable to argue your case without resorting to insults.
Marriage laws currently (and at common law) define a marriage as something between two persons of opposite sex.
Yes we know what the law is in many countries/states, that's what people are arguing against.
Is the prohibition against "marriage" between two persons of the same sex an instance of sex discrimination or is it an instance of sexual orientation discrimination.
I agree that single people shouldn't be discriminated either, though it's not clear to me how the law works for them in the US? I mean, it talks of an additional tax that unmarried partners have to pay, which doesn't seem relevant?
Although yes, all these kind of complex issues do make me think it best if marriage didn't have tax benefits at all.
Of course we should have no sympathy for unmarried opposite sex couples who are against gay marriage.
But for those who do support gay marriage - there are plenty of reasons why people might not want to get married. Are you seriously suggesting that one must get married just for a tax break?
People might not believe in or agree with the concept of marriage; they might not want a lifelong commitment yet; they might be polyamorous; they might not agree with all the legal issues that apply when you're married.
The simplest and best answer is to treat people the same - creating a double-class system is also still bad for gay people, as it perpetuates the idea that they must be treated differently. It also means they have to out themselves at work in order to take advantage of the benefit.
I'd also argue that we shouldn't have tax breaks that treat married couples different to unmarried ones full stop. Just as you (rightly) call for people who complain to lobby for gay marriage, are you also going to lobby for the tax system to not treat marriage differently?
Slashdot Mirror
Complete nonsense. Symbian is a smartphone OS. The term "smartphone" is rather ill-defined anyway, but I fail to see how phones like the 5800 don't count. What makes the Iphones smartphones? What does the IphoneOS have that Symbian doesn't - can they multitask yet? Finally got copy and paste, did we? Still waiting for Flash and Java? Can you run 3rd party apps of your choosing, like I'd expect on a smartphone rather than a locked down feature phone?
Even for their low end S40 (which is what you perhaps were thinking of), such phones can access the Internet and run apps. This has been the way for S40 and other "feature" phones for five years or more. Can you give me a definition of "smartphone" that includes the original Iphone, but not these feature phones?
The only reason S40 isn't a "smartphone" is brand marketing - Nokia label S60 and Maemo as "smartphones" to distinguish it from S40. But the old distinction between smartphones and dumbphones is long gone - almost all phones today, including S40, are "smart".
But yes, you're right that when people want a phone, they buy Nokia. When people want to brag about having an expensive phone that does the same, but with a nice Apple logo, they buy Iphone. It's the designer label of the technology world - the rest of us know you're paying extra for nothing more than a logo.
It is pretty much dead as a platform being developed for.
Citation needed?
As TFS says, Iphone just gets all the hype - perhaps because of the attention of it being for hobbyists rather than serious development, or maybe it's just the usual way the media give disproportionate coverage to anything that Apple does (just look at the Ipad).
Honestly, if OS X and Windows were released today, even with the same 10%/90% market shares repsectively, we'd have the media hyping about nothing but OS X, with Windows barely getting a mention at all.
I can confirm that Symbian/Maemo phones already support Qt, as the installer will just download the libraries as required. Future phones will include libraries as standard though, I believe.
Certainly works on my 5800 fine, and that's a two year old phone now. The Qt SDK has now made it out of beta, so now is the right time to start developing :) I'm new to it myself, and I'm impressed by the SDK, Qt is a very nice set of libraries.
I appreciate the idea that Android is good in that it's supported by multiple manufacturers. Though the same is still true of Symbian anyway (e.g., Samsung at least). Your argument is better directed at platforms like IphoneOS or OS X, which can only be made by Apple.
Also note that the development environment is Qt. You can cross-compile the same code to Symbian and Meago (Meemo in future). Oh, and also Windows, Linux and OS X. Dead end, you say?
Except for the 50% of the high end market that use it. Not to mention Nokia having by far most market share. Yeah, no one cares about it, obviously it's just like COBOL.
Nonsense. I don't see anyone claiming that they'll only repeal what's proposed on this site. They already have a list of candidate laws to repeal. This site is just one additional method for people to feed ideas too.
And, if current LD coalition behaviour is a model for future LD behaviour, this will become:
Selectively pick and reinterpret, proposing instead a compromise which no majority wants.
Untrue. Whilst I accept that some people dislike AV more than FPTP, this is not true for everyone. Even though it doesn't solve the problem of being non-proportional, I would still favour a system that better reflects what people vote for, rather than plurality voting which has many flaws.
If you think it "will inevitably be voted against in any referendum", then the same would certainly happen with any PR system.
The fallacy of argument to moderation is a problem in politics, but I don't see any evidence of it being specifically a problem with the Lib Dems, this freedom bill, or this website. The Goverment already repealed ID cards and biometric passports - there was no compromise.
We know that both the Lib Dems and Tories (both parties in the coalition) have promised a bill to repeal some laws - it was in their manifestos. Sure, they might lie, but I think it's quite reasonable to believe they will have some form of "freedom bill" (they've already repealed ID cards and biometric passports, for example).
This site might be "theatre" in the sense that they already have their list of ideas, and this site is only there to add support to it - e.g., "We're repealing the Digital Economy Act because it's one of the top of the list, and we're doing what people want!" But is that a bad thing? I would be very happy if they repealed the DEA, and if this site gives them extra support to do that, I'm happy to support the site. Even though technically it might be "theatre", the site still has a use in giving them extra support for repealing those laws.
I wouldn't want a site where the top ideas automatically get repealed, anyway - direct democracy has it's downsides, as well as the problem that online polls/voting can be very unreliable anyway. But having a site that helps to feed ideas that politicians might not have thought of could be of use.
I agree - just because one can strum a few chords of simplistic pop songs, doesn't mean it's easy to work out the music in general, especially of genres that aren't so simple. Some people have that talent, but it's rare.
But the easiest way of making a windows user envious is to use a mac
Something that's more closed than Windows and Linux?
No, we're not envious. You might think that we should be envious, just like the guy who brags about his expensive designer clothes or Iphone, but the rest of us don't actually care.
Who would probably tell them it's Opera at fault, and they should run Firefox...
Really, copyright debate boils down to free-loaders demanding free access to everything, and copyright holders demanding restrictions on everything.
Nice straw man there. Lots of people argue in the middle ground. Even The Pirate Party calls for some copyrights, but with a much reduced limit, as you suggest also.
simongiftcard.com
Oh great, I can get a prepaid credit card online. How do I pay them the $2?
A previous poster made the point was made that you can get prepaid credit cards from walmart.
So why didn't he point that out, instead of ignoring her simple requests for help, and responding with:
"Well, that's a stupid question, Brenna."
And then continuing to lecture her (even though she'd long since stopped offering his sheet music)?
I've never seen such pre-paid cards, nor have I seen one. You're also assuming she's in the US (I note she uses the British spelling "theatre"...)
This still doesn't answer the question of how she gets the money - she may be too young to work for all we know, and says her parents don't support her theatre. Heaven forbid those unruly teenagers break the law by wanting to learn to sing!
He was simply asking nicely for people not to share his music illegally.
And she did:
I've taken down your music
She then simply asked nicely in return:
I need the sheet music to "I'd Give It All For You" but thanks to your little stunt, I can't get it. And I cannot just go to the store and buy it. My parents don't support my theatre all that much and they won't buy it for me. And I need it pronto. If you're actually Jason Robert Brown, what can you do to help me with my situation?
A teenager, trying to learn to sing in theatre, without money, without the necessary credit card to even buy it (as she points out) and without support from her parents. His response?
Well, that's a stupid question, Brenna.
(After he already knew she hated that name, too.)
This guy wasn't asking nicely at all. The teenager responded to his request, asked nicely for help in return, and simply got insulted back and told to pay up - even though she had no way to order it online anyway.
I'm not sure what the point of this article was. If he thinks he was getting on his moral lecturing high horse, and assumed everyone would agree, he's mistaken.
I'm not sure she's missing any point. She's arguing her point of view on the issue, just as many do here on Slashdot. And she makes some very insightful points, I might add, whilst the author just carries on the same old tune of trying to force a teenager to pay him money just because she's learning to sing.
He started out the experiment by asking nicely, and many responded (even though he hadn't followed the legal process of the DMCA) - but, even though he may have the law on his side, perhaps he could show some tolerance in return?
For the record - yes, if a teenager wanted to look at code I'd written and owned the copyright to so he or she could learn to program, I'd be quite happy for that.
In particular, if it was trade - i.e., they were selling it - I can see it as being more of a problem. Though the author writes:
(I put "trade" in quotes because of course it's not really a trade, since nobody's giving anything up in exchange for what they get. It's just making illegal unauthorized copies, and calling it "trade" legitimizes it in an utterly fraudulent way.)
He seems to think that copying for free it makes it worse! He implies that if they were buying it from those people, it would be okay...
As for the story - well, I think that copyright should cover sheet music. But I'm not sure I have much sympathy for him harrassing a teenager. We're not talking about someone freeloading mp3s to listen to, she's trying to learn music so that she can learn to sing or play.
Heaven forbid, that we should have those immoral teenagers breaking the law by singing unauthorised songs! They should go back to watching TV all day or hanging around on street corners. Perhaps the owners of the rights to Happy Birthday are going to step in?
The story is funny, yes - but as for getting over yourselves, I think that's got to be pointed at the people here taking it seriously. The irony: what do you think the popular image of the stereotypical Slashdot geek is?
What would be nice is a Linux desktop in your hand, free to code on and see the hardware, flip it over and you have a packet pushing networked phone. Linked by a data network you pay for, not legal teams looking down at your mobile desktop.
Closed is great if you have to use it or get it for work, but we seem to have a real effort to trap developers in an almost free until you read the fine print walled gardens.
N900?
http://developer.symbian.org/main/source/license/index.php says it's the tools code that currently isn't available, though I'm not sure what that specifically refers to. Also note from http://developer.symbian.org/wiki/index.php/Platform_Completeness :
"However, some technologies which were historically included in Symbian OS / S60 platform releases were distributed under specific commercial licenses and hence could not be included in the initial Symbian Foundation codebase. Essentially Nokia have contributed everything they can to the Symbian Foundation but some technologies are licensed from other companies and hence can't be included in the platform until discussions with those companies have been completed."
I would hope that the survey would still count consulting, writing books or being self-employed as having a job, rather than still looking for a job. If yes, you can drop the "Look at me, I'm different" - you still work for a living, even if your job is writing books. If no, then the survey is rather flawed.
You may have the advantage of higher pay, but the disadvantage of lacking stability. Many employed people can work from home, so that's not a clear distinction.
More likely, some 17% of CS graduates are holding out for some programming job or higher, whereas an arts or women's studies graduate quickly comes to terms with getting a job as a receptionist or even a McDonald's job.
Indeed. It also doesn't have to be low paid or unskilled jobs - it may well be that people who have studied subjects like history or English are going into jobs where they use little of their degree, but are highly paid/skilled jobs (e.g., management in companies).
There are really different questions here: What degree gives you more job opportunities? And which graduates happen to be most employable?
With subjects like computer science, I'd say there's a far better link between the subject area and jobs that are available (other examples would be maths, law, medicine). I did maths and work now as a programmer (maths is at 10%, sorry if I'm stealing your computer jobs!), but would I have got my job if I had done a completely different degree? Quite likely not.
On the other hand, if a history graduate gets a job in a company, unless they're working as a historian, it seems more possible that they could have still got that job with a completely different degree. It's a question of causation - the sorts of people who do arts degree might be more employable than computer science, but that doesn't mean that doing an arts degree makes you more employable.
The argument isn't about straight people vs. gay people, it's about what the definition of "marriage" is.
It's about the benefits that the Government gives. If it does so in a discriminatory fashion, then it's discrimination. I don't care what your definitions are.
Not sure what Marx has to do with this. In general, I note you are unable to argue your case without resorting to insults.
Marriage laws currently (and at common law) define a marriage as something between two persons of opposite sex.
Yes we know what the law is in many countries/states, that's what people are arguing against.
Is the prohibition against "marriage" between two persons of the same sex an instance of sex discrimination or is it an instance of sexual orientation discrimination.
I'm not sure why it matters? What is your point?
I agree that single people shouldn't be discriminated either, though it's not clear to me how the law works for them in the US? I mean, it talks of an additional tax that unmarried partners have to pay, which doesn't seem relevant?
Although yes, all these kind of complex issues do make me think it best if marriage didn't have tax benefits at all.
Have you used every phone, tablet, netbook, PMP etc on the market?
Of course we should have no sympathy for unmarried opposite sex couples who are against gay marriage.
But for those who do support gay marriage - there are plenty of reasons why people might not want to get married. Are you seriously suggesting that one must get married just for a tax break?
People might not believe in or agree with the concept of marriage; they might not want a lifelong commitment yet; they might be polyamorous; they might not agree with all the legal issues that apply when you're married.
The simplest and best answer is to treat people the same - creating a double-class system is also still bad for gay people, as it perpetuates the idea that they must be treated differently. It also means they have to out themselves at work in order to take advantage of the benefit.
I'd also argue that we shouldn't have tax breaks that treat married couples different to unmarried ones full stop. Just as you (rightly) call for people who complain to lobby for gay marriage, are you also going to lobby for the tax system to not treat marriage differently?