To be fair, the summary doesn't say it's first. It's news because it's a new product by a major company. Given we get a story everytime there's a mere rumour about an Apple product, I think actual new products should qualify as news.
And not just child porn - we have politicians such as Martin Salter making claims about a porn trade involving women from Guatemala being raped and murdered on camera, in order to push his law that criminalises possession of images involving consenting adults (even when the acts are staged).
Not to mention the scaremongering put out by Government-funded groups such as the POPPY project to do with sex trafficking, in order to support the Government's own proposed laws on consensual prostitution.
Yeah, and AmigaOS was multitasking about 15 years before Apple caught up. Your point? What do machines of 25 years ago have to do with capabilities of machines today?
Anyhow, the "Macintosh" that had this is a completely different platform to the OS X machines of today. So unless you were suggesting in your previous comment that people pick up a classic Mac[*], this point is irrelevant anyway. Similarly, the Windows of today is a different OS line to 95 and 3.1. So your comment is both about 25 year old machines, and completely different platforms. I might as well claim that someone should try Linux, because Spectrums were better than Commodore 64s.
[*] Even if you were, your comments such as "I can barely use a Windows machine because of the mouse/trackpad. Apple really has sweated the details on this one" make no sense. If you're going to suggest "You might want to try a Macintosh", my response is, "You might want to try a machine more recent than 25 years ago"...
I'm not sure where you're getting all this from? If the PNG file is a valid PNG file, it's not lying in the metadata. It's perfectly correct - and actually, it would by lying to label it.torrent in this form, since it isn't a valid torrent file.
This just seems like asking for more problems, as people try to double-click on mjthriller.png and it launches - and crashes - IE.
Why would IE crash? IE would display the PNG file. But if you fed an encoded file to your torrent application, it wouldn't know what to do with it.
(And as an aside, even if the file is invalid, the application shouldn't really crash...)
Despite the Sturm und Drang about copyright and filesharing here on Slashdot, most people really don't care one way or the other.
You're right that most people don't care about the laws or the ethics, but that doesn't mean that most people don't do it. I don't know what the current stats on the number of people who have ever downloaded are (anyone?) but just consider how commonplace copying tapes and CDs, as well as recording off the radio, were. They never cared about the legality or the ethics - they just went ahead and did it.
I find it sickening that a group as creative and smart as the Slashdot community could be so blind to the value of copyright.
You can't polarise the issue into "all copyright is bad and everything should be public domain" versus "copyright law as it is is fine, and even anyone who copies their legally bought CD to their mp3 player is breaking the law and should be punished". Most people's views are more complex than that.
Firstly, I presume he meant different buildings in the same "complex", not people in the same building. I don't see how not kicking down the door of an innocent person allows illegal acts to go on elsewhere.
Secondly, he said "without a warrant" - I fail to see how the ordeal of obtaining a warrant means that crimes can't be stopped.
But that's just it - it isn't new. You won't find a Slashdot story about it however, because no one considers it news - unless it mentions "On Your Iphone", which then turns the most mundane of stories into a front page headline (as with that recent story of "You can read our website... On Your Iphone").
You're right that this wouldn't be censorship, but you're completely wrong to claim that censorship can only be performed by Governments.
The reason it wouldn't be censorship is that it's not censorship if someone decides for themselves not to publish something. It's not "censorship" if I choose not to say something; it's not censorship if Slashdot decides not to post a story; and it's not censorship if the user-run site Wikipedia collectively comes to a consensus of not publishing the images.
However, given that the images are clearly relevant to the article, there would have to be a damn good argument to not include them.
If however Slashdot decided to remove certain posts because someone had got offended, or if Wikimedia stepped in and said that the images be removed, then that would reasonably be called "censorship". The fact that they have a legal right to do so doesn't change the point (after all, Governments have a legal right too, since they write the laws).
You also have to be careful of stats. I use Opera 99% of the time - but if I'm viewing YouTube, I'm using IE 6 100% of the time, because the shitty Flash plug in that they require crashes on anything other than IE 6. So YouTube's browser stats I imagine would have a much higher proportion for IE 6.
I *do* use a modern browser - except as of a certain version, the Flash plug-in crashes, taking out my browser. So if I want to view a YouTube video, I have to fire up IE 6, as it's the only one that it works in.
Now YouTube have the cheek to tell me to use a "modern browser", when they're the one using a proprietary format that doesn't work in my modern browser!
Perhaps IE 8 will work with YouTube, I don't know, but I fail to see why I should have to upgrade to Microsoft's latest just because YouTube and Adobe can't get their act together.
People crying "about time" are missing the point. In my opinion, it's phasing out Flash that would be "about time".
Indeed - by that reasoning, most phones, even the high end ones, are "free" [if you take a contract].
This idea of paying for the phone and signing yourself into a contract sounds like the worst of both worlds, but maybe that's just because of what we're used to in the UK.
However if I already have an phone it is a useful feature nicely outlined in the article.
Fixed that for you. Yes, that was his point - this has been available on phones for years. Why do we need an article specifically for the Iphone, just because it finally joins the club? I thought Slashdot was once a place to find news on cutting edge technology - okay, I know we joke about stories turning up late, but...
I agree. Another advantage with menus is that they were in addition to the toolbar - so you still had the toolbar to quickly access (one click) commonly used functions.
Now, if you're not on the right tab (which happens more likely than not), you have to switch tabs, meaning it takes longer. Worse, you can get in a situation where a common workflow requires repeated use of two or more functions that are on different tabs, and you now have to switch tab every time!
Also, whilst "icons" may be quicker to recognise for a small number of commonly used functions, it's a very steep learning curve when everything is now as an icon, even rarely used items. I think this is why it takes ages to find things - and the argument that some have put here of "You're just not used to it" is bogus - the point is that it's much easier to guess what rarely used items do when they are in plain text, and not using an icon.
I'm not sure why surveys are relevant either. If we went by what most people used and liked, then Windows, Outlook and Internet Explorer would be the best programs ever.
If he's comparing to the Iphone's "revolution", perhaps he means Google OS will have Slashdotters thinking no one ever provided an OS with Internet access before Google came along. Or maybe it'll revolutionise the market so that missing out features that other OSs have had for years, and providing the fewer features it has at twice the price, is seen as an advantage.
Do you have a source for this? I've seen a lot of people speculating that this is what Google OS is - that it can't run anything but a web browser - but not a source.
And the same huge number of users when asked "what OS do you want on your new PC, Windows or Google Chrome?", will say "Windows" because they don't have a clue what an OS is and "Windows" sounds vaguely familiar.
You're seriously underestimating just how well known the Google brand is. That argument works for "Linux", it works to some degree for MacOS. It doesn't work for Google. (Not to mention that your statement has no relevance to how most people are sold computers. You don't walk into a shop, and then get asked what OS you want - rather, you choose the computer, and whatever OS is on it is the one you get.)
As far as I can tell, Google Chrome is a glorified web dumb terminal that some people will happen to run Linux apps on.
Citation needed. And if you can run native apps on, it's not a dumb web terminal.
Businesses won't flock to it because it will lack Windows application compatibility.
I doubt this is Google's market.
Clueful home users won't use it for the same reason ("Hey, why can't I use iTunes on this laptop or pull pictures from my Kodak camera using their Windows application???")
Not a problem for the netbook market, but I imagine Google will want to resolve issues such as compatibility with hardware devices. I mean sure, nothing's going to change overnight, but that doesn't mean Google will flop (even a niche player like Apple seem to manage staying in business). And if they can't run abysmal pieces of software like Itunes, all the better.
With what we currently know, the Google Chrome OS is as much a competitor to Windows as Google Docs and Gmail is to Microsoft Office and Outlook/Exchange.
I use Windows myself, but quite frankly, Outlook is the last email client I'd use if I had a choice. On any platform.
Re:You missed the point of your own story
on
Hello World!
·
· Score: 1
What example of such a thing would there be today? I'm not saying there isn't one - but I can't think of one off hand. The new toys and gadgets like netbooks/phones/etc are just extensions of the computer (and unless you need portability, an ordinary computer is just as useful if not more practical).
If my experience is any indication, it's only the first week or so that's going to be difficult. If you really do have to type that password so often, you would remember it in about one week.
Not if he's constantly having to change it.
(And before you respond saying that it doesn't take you that long to memorise it - there's the additional problem of confusion when you've had lots of passwords in the past. It's easy to forget and confuse your current ones with previous ones.)
but then, if you are an office worker dealing with computer every day who can't touch type... you are probably not a good worker (I work with scientists with whom typing skill doesn't really rank high in the list of priorities).
There are plenty of "office jobs" where typing skill doesn't really rank high in the list of priorities. I mean, even some scientists use computers, but I bet they have other priorities than touch typing.
If Apple came up with an Iphone that had buttons, 3G, copy/paste, ability to run applications not just that Apple decide, video, ability to picture message with a wide range of phones, and cost under £100, I'd switch in a flash. It's just such a shame that there aren't any phones other than the Iphone:(
Well I know this is hearsay, but my girlfriend's best friend's tennis partner works next door to someone in the gaming industry, who says he's heard rumours of a new development in the popular Duke Nukem franchise.
Something like this IS coming... It's only a matter of when.
But you have a Slashdot account, which you use to talk with complete strangers...
If it were worth me hearing about, I have a perfectly good AIM/MSN/Email/Phone
Why use them, when you have a perfectly good Twitter? Why use AIM/MSN/Email, when you have a perfectly good phone? (I've never used Twitter, but this argument isn't valid.)
Whatever happened to actually interacting with friends
Why is it one or the other? Can I conclude that you have no friends, as you're posting here on Slashdot instead?
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, the summary doesn't say it's first. It's news because it's a new product by a major company. Given we get a story everytime there's a mere rumour about an Apple product, I think actual new products should qualify as news.
I agree, I've seen this in the UK too. Lobbying groups such as the NSPCC put out claims such as 20,000 images a week (they're a charity, but they're also lobbying for new laws, such as criminalising possession of cartoons that appear to depict an under-18 year old).
And not just child porn - we have politicians such as Martin Salter making claims about a porn trade involving women from Guatemala being raped and murdered on camera, in order to push his law that criminalises possession of images involving consenting adults (even when the acts are staged).
Not to mention the scaremongering put out by Government-funded groups such as the POPPY project to do with sex trafficking, in order to support the Government's own proposed laws on consensual prostitution.
Yeah, and AmigaOS was multitasking about 15 years before Apple caught up. Your point? What do machines of 25 years ago have to do with capabilities of machines today?
Anyhow, the "Macintosh" that had this is a completely different platform to the OS X machines of today. So unless you were suggesting in your previous comment that people pick up a classic Mac[*], this point is irrelevant anyway. Similarly, the Windows of today is a different OS line to 95 and 3.1. So your comment is both about 25 year old machines, and completely different platforms. I might as well claim that someone should try Linux, because Spectrums were better than Commodore 64s.
[*] Even if you were, your comments such as "I can barely use a Windows machine because of the mouse/trackpad. Apple really has sweated the details on this one" make no sense. If you're going to suggest "You might want to try a Macintosh", my response is, "You might want to try a machine more recent than 25 years ago"...
I'm not sure where you're getting all this from? If the PNG file is a valid PNG file, it's not lying in the metadata. It's perfectly correct - and actually, it would by lying to label it .torrent in this form, since it isn't a valid torrent file.
This just seems like asking for more problems, as people try to double-click on mjthriller.png and it launches - and crashes - IE.
Why would IE crash? IE would display the PNG file. But if you fed an encoded file to your torrent application, it wouldn't know what to do with it.
(And as an aside, even if the file is invalid, the application shouldn't really crash...)
Despite the Sturm und Drang about copyright and filesharing here on Slashdot, most people really don't care one way or the other.
You're right that most people don't care about the laws or the ethics, but that doesn't mean that most people don't do it. I don't know what the current stats on the number of people who have ever downloaded are (anyone?) but just consider how commonplace copying tapes and CDs, as well as recording off the radio, were. They never cared about the legality or the ethics - they just went ahead and did it.
I find it sickening that a group as creative and smart as the Slashdot community could be so blind to the value of copyright.
You can't polarise the issue into "all copyright is bad and everything should be public domain" versus "copyright law as it is is fine, and even anyone who copies their legally bought CD to their mp3 player is breaking the law and should be punished". Most people's views are more complex than that.
Firstly, I presume he meant different buildings in the same "complex", not people in the same building. I don't see how not kicking down the door of an innocent person allows illegal acts to go on elsewhere.
Secondly, he said "without a warrant" - I fail to see how the ordeal of obtaining a warrant means that crimes can't be stopped.
But that's just it - it isn't new. You won't find a Slashdot story about it however, because no one considers it news - unless it mentions "On Your Iphone", which then turns the most mundane of stories into a front page headline (as with that recent story of "You can read our website ... On Your Iphone").
Yeah, I'll be forced to upgrade to IE 8. Yay!
You're right that this wouldn't be censorship, but you're completely wrong to claim that censorship can only be performed by Governments.
The reason it wouldn't be censorship is that it's not censorship if someone decides for themselves not to publish something. It's not "censorship" if I choose not to say something; it's not censorship if Slashdot decides not to post a story; and it's not censorship if the user-run site Wikipedia collectively comes to a consensus of not publishing the images.
However, given that the images are clearly relevant to the article, there would have to be a damn good argument to not include them.
If however Slashdot decided to remove certain posts because someone had got offended, or if Wikimedia stepped in and said that the images be removed, then that would reasonably be called "censorship". The fact that they have a legal right to do so doesn't change the point (after all, Governments have a legal right too, since they write the laws).
You also have to be careful of stats. I use Opera 99% of the time - but if I'm viewing YouTube, I'm using IE 6 100% of the time, because the shitty Flash plug in that they require crashes on anything other than IE 6. So YouTube's browser stats I imagine would have a much higher proportion for IE 6.
I *do* use a modern browser - except as of a certain version, the Flash plug-in crashes, taking out my browser. So if I want to view a YouTube video, I have to fire up IE 6, as it's the only one that it works in.
Now YouTube have the cheek to tell me to use a "modern browser", when they're the one using a proprietary format that doesn't work in my modern browser!
Perhaps IE 8 will work with YouTube, I don't know, but I fail to see why I should have to upgrade to Microsoft's latest just because YouTube and Adobe can't get their act together.
People crying "about time" are missing the point. In my opinion, it's phasing out Flash that would be "about time".
Yes but we're talking about the evolutionary effect over thousands of years, for most of which presumably cats weren't getting neutered.
Indeed - by that reasoning, most phones, even the high end ones, are "free" [if you take a contract].
This idea of paying for the phone and signing yourself into a contract sounds like the worst of both worlds, but maybe that's just because of what we're used to in the UK.
However if I already have an phone it is a useful feature nicely outlined in the article.
Fixed that for you. Yes, that was his point - this has been available on phones for years. Why do we need an article specifically for the Iphone, just because it finally joins the club? I thought Slashdot was once a place to find news on cutting edge technology - okay, I know we joke about stories turning up late, but...
What next? "Using Your Iphone To Talk To People"?
I agree. Another advantage with menus is that they were in addition to the toolbar - so you still had the toolbar to quickly access (one click) commonly used functions.
Now, if you're not on the right tab (which happens more likely than not), you have to switch tabs, meaning it takes longer. Worse, you can get in a situation where a common workflow requires repeated use of two or more functions that are on different tabs, and you now have to switch tab every time!
Also, whilst "icons" may be quicker to recognise for a small number of commonly used functions, it's a very steep learning curve when everything is now as an icon, even rarely used items. I think this is why it takes ages to find things - and the argument that some have put here of "You're just not used to it" is bogus - the point is that it's much easier to guess what rarely used items do when they are in plain text, and not using an icon.
I'm not sure why surveys are relevant either. If we went by what most people used and liked, then Windows, Outlook and Internet Explorer would be the best programs ever.
If he's comparing to the Iphone's "revolution", perhaps he means Google OS will have Slashdotters thinking no one ever provided an OS with Internet access before Google came along. Or maybe it'll revolutionise the market so that missing out features that other OSs have had for years, and providing the fewer features it has at twice the price, is seen as an advantage.
Do you have a source for this? I've seen a lot of people speculating that this is what Google OS is - that it can't run anything but a web browser - but not a source.
And the same huge number of users when asked "what OS do you want on your new PC, Windows or Google Chrome?", will say "Windows" because they don't have a clue what an OS is and "Windows" sounds vaguely familiar.
You're seriously underestimating just how well known the Google brand is. That argument works for "Linux", it works to some degree for MacOS. It doesn't work for Google. (Not to mention that your statement has no relevance to how most people are sold computers. You don't walk into a shop, and then get asked what OS you want - rather, you choose the computer, and whatever OS is on it is the one you get.)
As far as I can tell, Google Chrome is a glorified web dumb terminal that some people will happen to run Linux apps on.
Citation needed. And if you can run native apps on, it's not a dumb web terminal.
Businesses won't flock to it because it will lack Windows application compatibility.
I doubt this is Google's market.
Clueful home users won't use it for the same reason ("Hey, why can't I use iTunes on this laptop or pull pictures from my Kodak camera using their Windows application???")
Not a problem for the netbook market, but I imagine Google will want to resolve issues such as compatibility with hardware devices. I mean sure, nothing's going to change overnight, but that doesn't mean Google will flop (even a niche player like Apple seem to manage staying in business). And if they can't run abysmal pieces of software like Itunes, all the better.
With what we currently know, the Google Chrome OS is as much a competitor to Windows as Google Docs and Gmail is to Microsoft Office and Outlook/Exchange.
I use Windows myself, but quite frankly, Outlook is the last email client I'd use if I had a choice. On any platform.
What example of such a thing would there be today? I'm not saying there isn't one - but I can't think of one off hand. The new toys and gadgets like netbooks/phones/etc are just extensions of the computer (and unless you need portability, an ordinary computer is just as useful if not more practical).
No, I'd change credit card companies. Which presumably the person can't do here. Next analogy.
but that's only for a week or two, then you have your password memorized.
You forgot the crucial point about the password having to be changed repeatedly. If it was just a one off number, there wouldn't be a problem.
If my experience is any indication, it's only the first week or so that's going to be difficult. If you really do have to type that password so often, you would remember it in about one week.
Not if he's constantly having to change it.
(And before you respond saying that it doesn't take you that long to memorise it - there's the additional problem of confusion when you've had lots of passwords in the past. It's easy to forget and confuse your current ones with previous ones.)
but then, if you are an office worker dealing with computer every day who can't touch type ... you are probably not a good worker (I work with scientists with whom typing skill doesn't really rank high in the list of priorities).
There are plenty of "office jobs" where typing skill doesn't really rank high in the list of priorities. I mean, even some scientists use computers, but I bet they have other priorities than touch typing.
If Apple came up with an Iphone that had buttons, 3G, copy/paste, ability to run applications not just that Apple decide, video, ability to picture message with a wide range of phones, and cost under £100, I'd switch in a flash. It's just such a shame that there aren't any phones other than the Iphone :(
Well I know this is hearsay, but my girlfriend's best friend's tennis partner works next door to someone in the gaming industry, who says he's heard rumours of a new development in the popular Duke Nukem franchise.
Something like this IS coming... It's only a matter of when.
This is Gen N, for NARCISSCISM, as if anyone gives a rats ass what you think.
Says the guy posting on Slashdot.
Look, someone gave you +1 insightful, that will do wonders for your ego.
Reach out and really touch someone, make a fucking phone call or better yet, get some face time, you witless twits!
Yeah - get out of that basement!
But you have a Slashdot account, which you use to talk with complete strangers...
If it were worth me hearing about, I have a perfectly good AIM/MSN/Email/Phone
Why use them, when you have a perfectly good Twitter? Why use AIM/MSN/Email, when you have a perfectly good phone? (I've never used Twitter, but this argument isn't valid.)
Whatever happened to actually interacting with friends
Why is it one or the other? Can I conclude that you have no friends, as you're posting here on Slashdot instead?