I agree with your point, but note that many companies will give a charge to customers, which basically feels like a fine - most notably for late charges, e.g., to credit card companies.
I assume the point is that in these cases, they could theoretically sue you, so a fine is something a customer chooses as a cheaper option. But the problem is that customers may be scared into paying a fine, even if it's not clear if they'd have to pay any damages.
Another problem is how one sided it is. I've had cases where companies have overcharged me, and then not immediately refunded money - in some cases, they don't at all, and merely credit it against your next bill. Do they pay a fine? Of course not.
Similarly, some companies charge you if they send someone round for a repair, and you're not in. Yet if you stay in, and then they don't turn up, you don't get to fine them.
Having said all that, I don't see how this logic applies to this case. I don't see any grounds why the University could sue the student.
Now there's a thought. Until recently, the UK didn't have tuition fees - so historically Universities might fine students, but the point was the alternative option was to be kicked out. I don't think they'd sue you (unless it was something that you could be sued over - that doesn't seem to apply in this case; I'd like to see what contract he signed that prohibited him from running a website, and even there, it's up to a court to decide if a contract is reasonable, and whether the University has suffered damages).
But now we live in a world where students are paying thousands of pounds for their tuition. The old model of it being a privilege to be there no longer applies - students are customers paying the University for a service. So the idea of fines suddenly seems ridiculous, unless a University would otherwise have grounds to sue them (i.e., it has suffered damages). Similarly, a student ought to have grounds for appeal (or refunds) if the University kicks them out, after taking the money - a business contract works both ways.
How does it work in the US, where tuition fees have been around much longer? Do universities fine students for any petty and non-illegal act they don't like?
We had daily Ipad stories for months before it "existed" - and in fact, we had many rumour vaporware stories on the Apple tablet/Istale/etc even before the Ipad was announced.
There's the Asus Eee T91, a touchscreen netbook. It's cheaper than the other tablets, runs a real OS (Windows XP, and you could presumably put Linux on there), and isn't too heavy.
(Unfortunately the problem with Windows 7 Starter seems to be a problem with netbooks in general - there's always XP or Linux; and I'd still rather have Windows 7 starter than a locked down OS designed for phones that can't even multitask.)
Indeed. And you can blame the media hype over the Ipad for this change of direction. Before, people knew that the e-readers had advantages over normal LCDs, and meanwhile, if you were happy with an LCD, you could get a dirt cheap netbook or "ultra mobile" laptop.
But now look at where the hype is. Expect to see companies and the media pushing expensive keyboard-less tablets, running a locked down OS designed for feature phones, and I fear that netbooks will be forgotten.
And Slashdot is just as much to blame in this - look at the coverage the Ipad gets, compared with any given netbook, for example.
but when it comes down to elections, their support is firmly and unwaveringly on the side of the Tories.
No, they supported Labour from shortly before the 1997 election, all the way until 2009. (As far as I can tell, their support seems to be whoever they think seems most likely to win...)
Some Government control is bad, therefore all Government control is bad? That's a fallacy.
Why restrict it to the Internet? You might as well ask "Question to healthcare supporters - does this teach you that the Government doing something is very, very bad?"
Well Qt won't run on the Amiga either. Clearly, no solution is going to work for 100% of platforms, since there'll always be platforms that don't support it (even for things like Java, that are intended to run on "anything", they aren't supported on everything).
Covering Windows, Mac, Linux, Symbian is the vast majority of computing platforms out there. True, he won't cover that 5% of the phone market (in fact, a lot more of the phone market, since there's more than just Symbian and IphoneOS). Is there a solution that does better than Qt? (The only one I can think of is Java, in that it'll run on billions of Java phones, perhaps 90+% of the phone market; no, the Apple phones aren't capable of supporting Java either, but there you are.)
It's a shame that Apple can't even follow this basic principle when they write for other platforms - e.g., the abysmal non-standard UIs that Quicktime and Itunes have on Windows.
I also wonder why the story is all about Objective C (complete with the obligatory Iphone and Ipad Slashvertisement), when obviously there are 9 other languages in the top 10. Do they all get a story too? Seems like Slashdot is becoming more and more like an Apple news site...
Before they flipped to supporting Tory, they were supporting Labour, and weren't liberal then either (e.g., they supported Labour's plans to extend detention without charge; they let ex-Home Secretary David Blunkett have a column, who was responsible for all sorts of authoritarian laws). I agree there's still no evidence of them being a liberal paper (though at the moment, the Tories appear to be behaving more liberally than Labour, e.g., scrapping ID cards and planning to restore various lost freedoms).
Indeed, I and about 95% of the market don't. I've the world's smallest violin for app developers that are rejected, when they knew what they were going in for.
However, that doesn't change the OP's point. People can choose not to use Windows, but that didn't stop Slashdot using the joke borg image for Gates.
Indeed. The Iphone finally has tethering? Why, it's just caught up with the dirt cheap feature phone I bought five years ago, that I threw away in the trash six months ago.
Of course, the Ipad is bound to sell some, with daily stories in all the media, but Windows tablets have been selling fine for years, without all this marketing.
I wonder if they'd be more popular, if they'd received vast amounts of media coverage, for months before their release, and then received plenty of promotion from the media and shops upon release...
But yes, most people don't care about tablets (Apple included), presumably as netbooks are cheaper and more functional, or phones are similar but more portable.
Who cares about the PC - the Amiga had colour done right, right from the start.
Similarly, I see that today you pretend the only mobile platforms are Apple and Android:
Now it's cut and paste on the iPhone, or multitasking. Android gets it first, but Apple gets it right.
How did Apple get these things "right", such that it was wrong on all other platforms?
Same thing with the iPad. There were touchscreen netbooks, and Windows stylus-based tablets. But their impact on the consumer market was minuscule because these things all sucked.
Their market is still miniscule. If the Islate or whatever it is sells better, I think the wall to wall constant media coverage and free advertising it's had for months, whilst other tablets were ignored, may have something to do with it.
When it did change, it sold just as well in the UK, France and Germany as it did in the US.
Worldwide, the original Iphone didn't sell much at all. Even now, Apple sell less than Nokia, Samsung, LG, Motorola and RIM. I assumed that the media hype was because Apple do a bit better in the US market... are you saying that this isn't true, and they sell as "well" in the US as elsewhere?
Anyway, if it wasn't an issue, why all the hype when the Iphone did add 3G? I remember seeing it as front page news in the London papers (as if doing something that was commonplace on 2005 cheap feature phones was somehow something newsworthy).
So in other words, you don't have a reference for this argument? You're just assuming there must have been a reason, because they didn't add it?
Well okay - by the same logic, anything the Apple phones have which other phones don't, can't we claim that there must be some reason why the other phones don't have the feature, and they're better off without it?
he once called Camerons plans for a British Bill of Rights "Xenophobic and a legal nonsensity".
No, he was referring to Cameron's plans to repeal the Human Rights Acts (our version of the European Convention on Human Rights). I think that puts Kenneth Clarke in a good light regarding human rights, not a bad one.
(Will a Bill of Rights be better? Who knows. Do we trust the Tories to give us something better? And bear in mind that most the criticism of the HRA is based on Daily Mail-style whining of "How dare these people be allowed their rights!", and I fear therefore that a replacement will offer us less, not more.)
Slashdot Mirror
What about the daily Apple stories that go to other categories (Mobile, etc)?
I agree with your point, but note that many companies will give a charge to customers, which basically feels like a fine - most notably for late charges, e.g., to credit card companies.
I assume the point is that in these cases, they could theoretically sue you, so a fine is something a customer chooses as a cheaper option. But the problem is that customers may be scared into paying a fine, even if it's not clear if they'd have to pay any damages.
Another problem is how one sided it is. I've had cases where companies have overcharged me, and then not immediately refunded money - in some cases, they don't at all, and merely credit it against your next bill. Do they pay a fine? Of course not.
Similarly, some companies charge you if they send someone round for a repair, and you're not in. Yet if you stay in, and then they don't turn up, you don't get to fine them.
Having said all that, I don't see how this logic applies to this case. I don't see any grounds why the University could sue the student.
and abandon whatever he already paid in tuition.
Now there's a thought. Until recently, the UK didn't have tuition fees - so historically Universities might fine students, but the point was the alternative option was to be kicked out. I don't think they'd sue you (unless it was something that you could be sued over - that doesn't seem to apply in this case; I'd like to see what contract he signed that prohibited him from running a website, and even there, it's up to a court to decide if a contract is reasonable, and whether the University has suffered damages).
But now we live in a world where students are paying thousands of pounds for their tuition. The old model of it being a privilege to be there no longer applies - students are customers paying the University for a service. So the idea of fines suddenly seems ridiculous, unless a University would otherwise have grounds to sue them (i.e., it has suffered damages). Similarly, a student ought to have grounds for appeal (or refunds) if the University kicks them out, after taking the money - a business contract works both ways.
How does it work in the US, where tuition fees have been around much longer? Do universities fine students for any petty and non-illegal act they don't like?
We had daily Ipad stories for months before it "existed" - and in fact, we had many rumour vaporware stories on the Apple tablet/Istale/etc even before the Ipad was announced.
True, though let's face it - if this was from Apple, there'd be people here praising how revolutionary and innovative the idea was.
when was the last time you could scribble notes by hand on your laptop screen?
Anytime you want, with a touchscreen netbook or laptop.
There's the Asus Eee T91, a touchscreen netbook. It's cheaper than the other tablets, runs a real OS (Windows XP, and you could presumably put Linux on there), and isn't too heavy.
(Unfortunately the problem with Windows 7 Starter seems to be a problem with netbooks in general - there's always XP or Linux; and I'd still rather have Windows 7 starter than a locked down OS designed for phones that can't even multitask.)
Indeed. And you can blame the media hype over the Ipad for this change of direction. Before, people knew that the e-readers had advantages over normal LCDs, and meanwhile, if you were happy with an LCD, you could get a dirt cheap netbook or "ultra mobile" laptop.
But now look at where the hype is. Expect to see companies and the media pushing expensive keyboard-less tablets, running a locked down OS designed for feature phones, and I fear that netbooks will be forgotten.
And Slashdot is just as much to blame in this - look at the coverage the Ipad gets, compared with any given netbook, for example.
but when it comes down to elections, their support is firmly and unwaveringly on the side of the Tories.
No, they supported Labour from shortly before the 1997 election, all the way until 2009. (As far as I can tell, their support seems to be whoever they think seems most likely to win...)
Some Government control is bad, therefore all Government control is bad? That's a fallacy.
Why restrict it to the Internet? You might as well ask "Question to healthcare supporters - does this teach you that the Government doing something is very, very bad?"
Well Qt won't run on the Amiga either. Clearly, no solution is going to work for 100% of platforms, since there'll always be platforms that don't support it (even for things like Java, that are intended to run on "anything", they aren't supported on everything).
Covering Windows, Mac, Linux, Symbian is the vast majority of computing platforms out there. True, he won't cover that 5% of the phone market (in fact, a lot more of the phone market, since there's more than just Symbian and IphoneOS). Is there a solution that does better than Qt? (The only one I can think of is Java, in that it'll run on billions of Java phones, perhaps 90+% of the phone market; no, the Apple phones aren't capable of supporting Java either, but there you are.)
Note that Qt is now also the standard SDK for Symbian, so you'll also get 50% of the smartphone market anyway.
It's a shame that Apple can't even follow this basic principle when they write for other platforms - e.g., the abysmal non-standard UIs that Quicktime and Itunes have on Windows.
I also wonder why the story is all about Objective C (complete with the obligatory Iphone and Ipad Slashvertisement), when obviously there are 9 other languages in the top 10. Do they all get a story too? Seems like Slashdot is becoming more and more like an Apple news site...
Liberal != left wing.
Before they flipped to supporting Tory, they were supporting Labour, and weren't liberal then either (e.g., they supported Labour's plans to extend detention without charge; they let ex-Home Secretary David Blunkett have a column, who was responsible for all sorts of authoritarian laws). I agree there's still no evidence of them being a liberal paper (though at the moment, the Tories appear to be behaving more liberally than Labour, e.g., scrapping ID cards and planning to restore various lost freedoms).
Indeed, I and about 95% of the market don't. I've the world's smallest violin for app developers that are rejected, when they knew what they were going in for.
However, that doesn't change the OP's point. People can choose not to use Windows, but that didn't stop Slashdot using the joke borg image for Gates.
Indeed. The Iphone finally has tethering? Why, it's just caught up with the dirt cheap feature phone I bought five years ago, that I threw away in the trash six months ago.
Citation needed?
Of course, the Ipad is bound to sell some, with daily stories in all the media, but Windows tablets have been selling fine for years, without all this marketing.
(Why can I only post once every 5 mins today?)
I wonder if they'd be more popular, if they'd received vast amounts of media coverage, for months before their release, and then received plenty of promotion from the media and shops upon release...
But yes, most people don't care about tablets (Apple included), presumably as netbooks are cheaper and more functional, or phones are similar but more portable.
Who cares about the PC - the Amiga had colour done right, right from the start.
Similarly, I see that today you pretend the only mobile platforms are Apple and Android:
Now it's cut and paste on the iPhone, or multitasking. Android gets it first, but Apple gets it right.
How did Apple get these things "right", such that it was wrong on all other platforms?
Same thing with the iPad. There were touchscreen netbooks, and Windows stylus-based tablets. But their impact on the consumer market was minuscule because these things all sucked.
Their market is still miniscule. If the Islate or whatever it is sells better, I think the wall to wall constant media coverage and free advertising it's had for months, whilst other tablets were ignored, may have something to do with it.
How does it work then?
(And a UI that doesn't allow you to do it at all is not a good UI.)
When it did change, it sold just as well in the UK, France and Germany as it did in the US.
Worldwide, the original Iphone didn't sell much at all. Even now, Apple sell less than Nokia, Samsung, LG, Motorola and RIM. I assumed that the media hype was because Apple do a bit better in the US market... are you saying that this isn't true, and they sell as "well" in the US as elsewhere?
Anyway, if it wasn't an issue, why all the hype when the Iphone did add 3G? I remember seeing it as front page news in the London papers (as if doing something that was commonplace on 2005 cheap feature phones was somehow something newsworthy).
Microsoft make billions too, and you don't - does this mean all their products are the best, and you have no right to criticise them?
So in other words, you don't have a reference for this argument? You're just assuming there must have been a reason, because they didn't add it?
Well okay - by the same logic, anything the Apple phones have which other phones don't, can't we claim that there must be some reason why the other phones don't have the feature, and they're better off without it?
he once called Camerons plans for a British Bill of Rights "Xenophobic and a legal nonsensity".
No, he was referring to Cameron's plans to repeal the Human Rights Acts (our version of the European Convention on Human Rights). I think that puts Kenneth Clarke in a good light regarding human rights, not a bad one.
(Will a Bill of Rights be better? Who knows. Do we trust the Tories to give us something better? And bear in mind that most the criticism of the HRA is based on Daily Mail-style whining of "How dare these people be allowed their rights!", and I fear therefore that a replacement will offer us less, not more.)