It used to be the case that Firefox lost all its tabs everytime you restarted the browser, unless you installed an extension to fix it - I don't know if that's in there as standard now (it should be, in my opinion, as this behaviour is the whole point of having tabs; without it, it's just a browser with several windows).
and why don't you just click on Tools->Add-ons->Get Extensions ?
I covered this in my post. It's not just "click on this", it's search and find all the extensions that you hope replicate the functionality that's standard in other browsers. And explain that to your random non-geek friend, when it'd be much easier to say "Install this".
It's not that extensions are bad, it's just more of a hassle if the functionality is not included as standard.
It's one reason I can't be bothered to try switching from Opera. Sure, I've downloaded Firefox, but I don't have to time to try to hunt down all the extensions to replicate Opera's standard functionality, and wonder if each extension is the one I want.
This is even more of an issue if you are trying to persuade a random non-geek user to switch from IE - you can't say "Go to this link", instead you have to say "Go here, then install it, then go here, here and here, and install all those things". For now, Firefox has done well because its standard features are still better than IE (and the extra standard features of Opera do not seem to be known by as many people). But you can't expect an average user to grapple with trying to hunt down extensions, just to replicate what'll be standard behaviour in IE.
As for bloatware, you need to compare real world filesizes. Last time I checked, Opera was still smaller than Firefox (even without any extensions), though I haven't checked the current sizes.
Flash and Java are not the Internet, are not part of the infrastructure of the Internet, are not protocols for getting content, are not standard content formats on the Internet, are not ubiquitous content formats, and are considered by many to be extraneous and undesirable.
But if we are using this definition of the Internet, then Apple are still incorrect, because they claim that all parts of it "are on the iPhone" - obviously the infrastructure and so on is not on the Iphone.
Code Red and Slammer are content available on the Internet, too. I guess now Apple needs to supply something compatible to make those run as intended?
Or they could simply play by the fair rules like everyone else has to, and not make stupid false claims about being able to do everything.
I don't see the problem here. Every other phone company has had to play by the rules - Internet access has been available for years, but they haven't advertised this as "all parts" of the Internet on your phone. Why should Apple be allowed to get away with it? There are already enough people incorrectly thinking that the Iphone is the first phone to allow Internet, without allowing Apple to get away with fraudulent advertising.
Any old phone these days has standard Internet access and ability to view standard webpages - it's been that way for years. So the question still stands: "What parts of the internet can people access on iphones that they can't on other phones?" - with the exception of very cheap or very old WAP-only phones?
The Mac of 25 years ago is just as much a footnote as the Amiga - the difference is that the Mac trademark is now used to refer to a new different OS X based platform.
Given that the Amiga and Atari were based on a similar closed "one company makes all" strategy, it's not clear why Apple opening their platform would have made them more like the Amiga and Atari - rather, it would've made them closer to the PC.
And of course this "old order" is what's having a 25th anniversary here, and doing just fine.
Although, the old order isn't quite the same as it was - although Apple still try to control the platform, the hardware is now based on the same standard PC parts as any other computer. Given that Apple had to switch from their custom hardware, to Intel and other standard hardware, I think that shows how the open strategy allowed it to become dominant, while the old closed Mac hardware is nowhere to be seen today.
Well there's lots of stuff semantically wrong with that quote, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out what they meant.
It doesn't mean what you think it meant. What it means is something that isn't true.
Besides Flash and Java are not part of the Internet, the Internet is merely a mechanism in which those are delivered.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what they meant. And see my other comment. Given that they are selling a product, it's rather meaningless simply being able to access all parts of the Internet unless those are available to the user, without purchasing additional products.
Moreover, if what they were saying was that they are offering something that other phones don't, then this is also misleading, since just about every bog-standard phone these days has access to the Internet.
Right, so if the package being advertised is not actually available, but only exists if you purchase other hypothetical applications for it, if they exist at all - you wouldn't consider that misleading advertising at all?
Moreover, since phones and computers are turing machines, by this logic, any phone or computer manufacturer could advertise all sorts of wild claims without actually supplying that software, on the basis that such an application could hypothetically be written for it! Perhaps Microsoft should be allowed to advertise that Windows can run Mac applications, on the basis that additional software could hypothetically be written to emulate it, and Microsoft are not doing anything to explicitly disallow that functionality?
It's even confused many/.ers (who generally like to be considered geeks) over just what the Internet is and what Apple offers.
I fully understand what the Internet is. I also understand what an application is, and how it's misleading to claim something that isn't being sold - the fact that you might or might not be able to purchase an additional piece of software to do that is irrelevant. Confusion on this matter does not make a statement true.
Apple never claimed the phone could do something it couldn't. It only claimed that its phone was more capable than other phones.
From TFA:
The Advertising Standards Authority said that a TV promotion had falsely suggested that iPhone users would have unfettered access to the entire internet over their mobile.
"You never know which part of the internet you'll need," said the advert's voiceover. "Which is why all the parts of the internet are on the iPhone."
They were contrasting it's capabilities with phones that only do mobile web or can't render all of HTML.
This argument might have worked in the 20th Century, but now the vast majority of phones can do normal webpages.
The UK government is trying to solve the wrong problem.... If I was a UK citizen I'd be rather upset about my government wasting time and money on nonsense.
This has got nothing to do with the UK Government or taxpayer money.
The problem isn't that some devices can't do certain things. The real problem is that content isn't made for every device.
Indeed. And if you make the claim that your device can do something it can't, that's your problem.
I agree, and it's even more so than that - even bog standard non-smart-phones have for years offered Internet access, including email clients and web browers that access standard non-WAP webpages. This whole "Wow, you can now look at webpages on the Iphone, other phones can only do WAP" is getting tiring - I guess they just haven't used a phone in the last decade.
Right, so if you have a phone that could connect to any IP, but couldn't present the information to the user in any way, you'd say it's entirely okay to advertise:
"You never know which part of the internet you'll need," said the advert's voiceover. "Which is why all the parts of the internet are on the iPhone."
But can a car that does advertise as an all-terrain vehicle drive through an active volcano? Or under water?
Cars are generally understood as not being machines that travel underwater. However, if you market a device claiming it can access all parts of the Internet, pages that run Flash or Java are generally understood to be a significant part of that. If a car company claimed that they had a submarine-car that could go everywhere underwater, when it couldn't, I'd hope that wouldn't be allowed either.
Similarly, while an iPhone cannot use NNTP or (god forbid) BGP protocols, it certainly provides a greater internet experience than many other phones.
Entirely a matter of opinion - Apple don't get to make objective claims based on subjective opinions. At least, not in the UK.
I would say really the fault likely belongs more to Adobe.
Adobe aren't the ones making the claim that Flash runs on the Iphone.
Apple aren't being blamed for not running Flash (many phones don't), they're being blamed for choosing to make a misleading claim - and that is their fault.
What will happen however, and is already underway, is that the iPhone is cracking open the prospect for real mobile websites that don't require Flash or Java. Previously, everything on the web was moving toward WAP-type mobile junksites, where you could barely do anything on the site, or alternatively Flash-heavy rubbish sites designed for users on a 10-megabit cable Internet feed.
Mobiles moved away from WAP years ago. It's already been the case that for years, any bog standard phone can access ordinary webpages, and smart phones will do so just as good as on an Iphone.
(Now sure, it's true that it's annoying that most normal webpages are still not designed with mobile devices in mind, and hopefully that will change as mobile usage becomes more common, but that's got nothing to do with an Iphone.)
That's why this ruling is important - the other phone manufacturers have played by the rules, and not mislead the consumer into thinking you can have full web functionality on a phone, so why should Apple get an unfair advantage by misleading consumers?
I'm sure he does understand the Streisand effect, since it doesn't really apply here. Sure, it'll get a few more mentions on blogs and anonymous "Joe Slobs", but big deal - that's nothing compared to being mentioned in mainstream media coverage, which will be more damaging if they show up in a future Google search.
I fail to see a problem - I think giving anonymity to people accused but not convicted of crimes would be a good thing in general.
Details about a trial that may be published by the press are restricted all the time (e.g., names of victims, or minors who are accused of a crime). Do we cry "censorship" in these cases?
There are plenty of examples of dysfunctional monogamous relationships, such as those where the man "rules the family with an iron fist", or perhaps looking at some cultures with rather dubious or immoral practices. I would hope we wouldn't judge all of monogamy by a single anecdotal example.
So why don't you?:) (Okay, you can't get legally married, but people do practice polyamory in western nations.) (And FWIW, I know some polyamorous Christians...)
People are faithful to each other in a poly relationship too. The difference with monogamy is being faithful to one person to the exclusion of all others. Now sure, I take your points about making a sacrifice, but it's not clear to me that making life hard for you is inherently an end in itself. You might as well say that people should throw their money away, or live without luxury items, to make a sacrifice to show respect for their love.
Also note that the OP said "being faithful to one partner throughout your life", so that rules out anyone who's had more than one relationship too.
Certainly, there are non-religious reasons why some ppl prefer lifelong monogamy. However, I think the OP was talking about more about the pressure to behave like this, even for people who would prefer not to - and much of that pressure does seem to come from religion.
Or you might just love the person so much that hurting them isn't worth a few hours of pleasure.
Again, the issue here isn't being unfaithful for a quick night stand, but long term relationships with everyone's knowledge and consent. No one is hurt anymore so than in monogamous relationships.
And what if the wives felt they wanted to bring in an extra husband? i'd have less trouble with polygamy if it worked both ways. Or, why bother with marriage at all? Just live with whomever, breed with whomever and keep rituals and paperwork out of it.
As the other reply says, many people do do it both ways (not to mention the existence of same-sex, or both same and opposite sexes relationships, leading to all sorts of possible combinations...). I agree that the one-sided versions are rather unfair, for some reason these are the ones that get all the publicity. I mean, you youself describe a situation where you dated two people, with everyone's knowledge and consent.
As for marriage - well, I'd say the same thing about marriage full stop, monogamy or otherwise. Why should people need the legal paperwork? I'd rather do away with marriage as a legal concept altogether.
However, the chances of that happening are very small ("this politician wants to destroy the institution of marriage!"), so in the meantime, it doesn't seem unreasonable that people want some of the same rights offered by marriage, without the requirement of being monogamous to one person.
Whilst you might be correct from a strict definitions point of view, I think his point was more that the problems described by the poster he replied to were specifically issues that result from polygyny, as opposed to polygamy in general (where either gender may have multiple partners - there isn't really a name for this specifically).
I'm not sure if you mean to conflate these - they are different concepts (though some ppl may do both).
Polyamory is basically multiple relationships, but the term is used in western societies where multiple marriage is not legal, so "polygamy" would be misleading. I too would be interesting to know if the research would have the same effects - are the differences really due to multiple partners? If the study only looks at different cultures, then we don't know whether it might be something else that is the cause.
things like possibly increased rates of STDs and relationship destruction
I'm not sure what this has to do with polyamory. One could be polyamorous with two life long partners; on the other hand "monogamous" people can sleep around all over the place. I don't see any evidence that polyamorous relationships are more likely to break down (come to that, I don't see the connection to swinging, either).
It is perfectly legal for anyone to screw a 16 year old girl, any way they want. However, if after they banged her every which way, they drew a picture of her naked and gave it to her, they can be done for distributing child pornography and put away for god knows how many years.
Note that a drawing is currently legal in the UK, however they are planning to criminalise them (see my other comment). But it would be illegal if they took a photo, which I fully agree is fucked up. In fact, she could be done for possessing a picture of her own body. The Government's own police agency has warned under-18s that they could be prosecuted for posing on a webcam. (Police Chief Jim Gamble - who incidentally headed the notorious Operation Ore also wants "extreme" adult porn to be illegal - says "It's no different in the virtual world". Er, yeah, except for the fact that watching 16 year olds would be legal if it was in the real world).
A particular curiousity is that the age of consent is 16. So sex with a 16/17 year old is legal, but a drawing of the same act, even if entirely drawn from one's imagination, will soon be illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
What functionality would that be
It used to be the case that Firefox lost all its tabs everytime you restarted the browser, unless you installed an extension to fix it - I don't know if that's in there as standard now (it should be, in my opinion, as this behaviour is the whole point of having tabs; without it, it's just a browser with several windows).
and why don't you just click on Tools->Add-ons->Get Extensions ?
I covered this in my post. It's not just "click on this", it's search and find all the extensions that you hope replicate the functionality that's standard in other browsers. And explain that to your random non-geek friend, when it'd be much easier to say "Install this".
It's not that extensions are bad, it's just more of a hassle if the functionality is not included as standard.
It's one reason I can't be bothered to try switching from Opera. Sure, I've downloaded Firefox, but I don't have to time to try to hunt down all the extensions to replicate Opera's standard functionality, and wonder if each extension is the one I want.
This is even more of an issue if you are trying to persuade a random non-geek user to switch from IE - you can't say "Go to this link", instead you have to say "Go here, then install it, then go here, here and here, and install all those things". For now, Firefox has done well because its standard features are still better than IE (and the extra standard features of Opera do not seem to be known by as many people). But you can't expect an average user to grapple with trying to hunt down extensions, just to replicate what'll be standard behaviour in IE.
As for bloatware, you need to compare real world filesizes. Last time I checked, Opera was still smaller than Firefox (even without any extensions), though I haven't checked the current sizes.
Flash and Java are not the Internet, are not part of the infrastructure of the Internet, are not protocols for getting content, are not standard content formats on the Internet, are not ubiquitous content formats, and are considered by many to be extraneous and undesirable.
But if we are using this definition of the Internet, then Apple are still incorrect, because they claim that all parts of it "are on the iPhone" - obviously the infrastructure and so on is not on the Iphone.
Code Red and Slammer are content available on the Internet, too. I guess now Apple needs to supply something compatible to make those run as intended?
Or they could simply play by the fair rules like everyone else has to, and not make stupid false claims about being able to do everything.
I don't see the problem here. Every other phone company has had to play by the rules - Internet access has been available for years, but they haven't advertised this as "all parts" of the Internet on your phone. Why should Apple be allowed to get away with it? There are already enough people incorrectly thinking that the Iphone is the first phone to allow Internet, without allowing Apple to get away with fraudulent advertising.
So does this mean you are an anti-fanboy fanboy?
Any old phone these days has standard Internet access and ability to view standard webpages - it's been that way for years. So the question still stands: "What parts of the internet can people access on iphones that they can't on other phones?" - with the exception of very cheap or very old WAP-only phones?
The Mac of 25 years ago is just as much a footnote as the Amiga - the difference is that the Mac trademark is now used to refer to a new different OS X based platform.
Given that the Amiga and Atari were based on a similar closed "one company makes all" strategy, it's not clear why Apple opening their platform would have made them more like the Amiga and Atari - rather, it would've made them closer to the PC.
And of course this "old order" is what's having a 25th anniversary here, and doing just fine.
Although, the old order isn't quite the same as it was - although Apple still try to control the platform, the hardware is now based on the same standard PC parts as any other computer. Given that Apple had to switch from their custom hardware, to Intel and other standard hardware, I think that shows how the open strategy allowed it to become dominant, while the old closed Mac hardware is nowhere to be seen today.
Well there's lots of stuff semantically wrong with that quote, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out what they meant.
It doesn't mean what you think it meant. What it means is something that isn't true.
Besides Flash and Java are not part of the Internet, the Internet is merely a mechanism in which those are delivered.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what they meant. And see my other comment. Given that they are selling a product, it's rather meaningless simply being able to access all parts of the Internet unless those are available to the user, without purchasing additional products.
Moreover, if what they were saying was that they are offering something that other phones don't, then this is also misleading, since just about every bog-standard phone these days has access to the Internet.
Other applications are for sale for the phone.
Right, so if the package being advertised is not actually available, but only exists if you purchase other hypothetical applications for it, if they exist at all - you wouldn't consider that misleading advertising at all?
Moreover, since phones and computers are turing machines, by this logic, any phone or computer manufacturer could advertise all sorts of wild claims without actually supplying that software, on the basis that such an application could hypothetically be written for it! Perhaps Microsoft should be allowed to advertise that Windows can run Mac applications, on the basis that additional software could hypothetically be written to emulate it, and Microsoft are not doing anything to explicitly disallow that functionality?
It's even confused many /.ers (who generally like to be considered geeks) over just what the Internet is and what Apple offers.
I fully understand what the Internet is. I also understand what an application is, and how it's misleading to claim something that isn't being sold - the fact that you might or might not be able to purchase an additional piece of software to do that is irrelevant. Confusion on this matter does not make a statement true.
Apple never claimed the phone could do something it couldn't. It only claimed that its phone was more capable than other phones.
From TFA:
The Advertising Standards Authority said that a TV promotion had falsely suggested that iPhone users would have unfettered access to the entire internet over their mobile.
"You never know which part of the internet you'll need," said the advert's voiceover. "Which is why all the parts of the internet are on the iPhone."
They were contrasting it's capabilities with phones that only do mobile web or can't render all of HTML.
This argument might have worked in the 20th Century, but now the vast majority of phones can do normal webpages.
The UK government is trying to solve the wrong problem. ... If I was a UK citizen I'd be rather upset about my government wasting time and money on nonsense.
This has got nothing to do with the UK Government or taxpayer money.
The problem isn't that some devices can't do certain things. The real problem is that content isn't made for every device.
Indeed. And if you make the claim that your device can do something it can't, that's your problem.
I agree, and it's even more so than that - even bog standard non-smart-phones have for years offered Internet access, including email clients and web browers that access standard non-WAP webpages. This whole "Wow, you can now look at webpages on the Iphone, other phones can only do WAP" is getting tiring - I guess they just haven't used a phone in the last decade.
Right, so if you have a phone that could connect to any IP, but couldn't present the information to the user in any way, you'd say it's entirely okay to advertise:
"You never know which part of the internet you'll need," said the advert's voiceover. "Which is why all the parts of the internet are on the iPhone."
?
But can a car that does advertise as an all-terrain vehicle drive through an active volcano? Or under water?
Cars are generally understood as not being machines that travel underwater. However, if you market a device claiming it can access all parts of the Internet, pages that run Flash or Java are generally understood to be a significant part of that. If a car company claimed that they had a submarine-car that could go everywhere underwater, when it couldn't, I'd hope that wouldn't be allowed either.
Similarly, while an iPhone cannot use NNTP or (god forbid) BGP protocols, it certainly provides a greater internet experience than many other phones.
Entirely a matter of opinion - Apple don't get to make objective claims based on subjective opinions. At least, not in the UK.
I would say really the fault likely belongs more to Adobe.
Adobe aren't the ones making the claim that Flash runs on the Iphone.
Apple aren't being blamed for not running Flash (many phones don't), they're being blamed for choosing to make a misleading claim - and that is their fault.
What will happen however, and is already underway, is that the iPhone is cracking open the prospect for real mobile websites that don't require Flash or Java. Previously, everything on the web was moving toward WAP-type mobile junksites, where you could barely do anything on the site, or alternatively Flash-heavy rubbish sites designed for users on a 10-megabit cable Internet feed.
Mobiles moved away from WAP years ago. It's already been the case that for years, any bog standard phone can access ordinary webpages, and smart phones will do so just as good as on an Iphone.
(Now sure, it's true that it's annoying that most normal webpages are still not designed with mobile devices in mind, and hopefully that will change as mobile usage becomes more common, but that's got nothing to do with an Iphone.)
That's why this ruling is important - the other phone manufacturers have played by the rules, and not mislead the consumer into thinking you can have full web functionality on a phone, so why should Apple get an unfair advantage by misleading consumers?
I'm sure he does understand the Streisand effect, since it doesn't really apply here. Sure, it'll get a few more mentions on blogs and anonymous "Joe Slobs", but big deal - that's nothing compared to being mentioned in mainstream media coverage, which will be more damaging if they show up in a future Google search.
I fail to see a problem - I think giving anonymity to people accused but not convicted of crimes would be a good thing in general.
Details about a trial that may be published by the press are restricted all the time (e.g., names of victims, or minors who are accused of a crime). Do we cry "censorship" in these cases?
There are plenty of examples of dysfunctional monogamous relationships, such as those where the man "rules the family with an iron fist", or perhaps looking at some cultures with rather dubious or immoral practices. I would hope we wouldn't judge all of monogamy by a single anecdotal example.
So why don't you? :) (Okay, you can't get legally married, but people do practice polyamory in western nations.) (And FWIW, I know some polyamorous Christians...)
People are faithful to each other in a poly relationship too. The difference with monogamy is being faithful to one person to the exclusion of all others. Now sure, I take your points about making a sacrifice, but it's not clear to me that making life hard for you is inherently an end in itself. You might as well say that people should throw their money away, or live without luxury items, to make a sacrifice to show respect for their love.
Also note that the OP said "being faithful to one partner throughout your life", so that rules out anyone who's had more than one relationship too.
Certainly, there are non-religious reasons why some ppl prefer lifelong monogamy. However, I think the OP was talking about more about the pressure to behave like this, even for people who would prefer not to - and much of that pressure does seem to come from religion.
Or you might just love the person so much that hurting them isn't worth a few hours of pleasure.
Again, the issue here isn't being unfaithful for a quick night stand, but long term relationships with everyone's knowledge and consent. No one is hurt anymore so than in monogamous relationships.
And what if the wives felt they wanted to bring in an extra husband? i'd have less trouble with polygamy if it worked both ways. Or, why bother with marriage at all? Just live with whomever, breed with whomever and keep rituals and paperwork out of it.
As the other reply says, many people do do it both ways (not to mention the existence of same-sex, or both same and opposite sexes relationships, leading to all sorts of possible combinations...). I agree that the one-sided versions are rather unfair, for some reason these are the ones that get all the publicity. I mean, you youself describe a situation where you dated two people, with everyone's knowledge and consent.
As for marriage - well, I'd say the same thing about marriage full stop, monogamy or otherwise. Why should people need the legal paperwork? I'd rather do away with marriage as a legal concept altogether.
However, the chances of that happening are very small ("this politician wants to destroy the institution of marriage!"), so in the meantime, it doesn't seem unreasonable that people want some of the same rights offered by marriage, without the requirement of being monogamous to one person.
Whilst you might be correct from a strict definitions point of view, I think his point was more that the problems described by the poster he replied to were specifically issues that result from polygyny, as opposed to polygamy in general (where either gender may have multiple partners - there isn't really a name for this specifically).
polyamory/swinging
I'm not sure if you mean to conflate these - they are different concepts (though some ppl may do both).
Polyamory is basically multiple relationships, but the term is used in western societies where multiple marriage is not legal, so "polygamy" would be misleading. I too would be interesting to know if the research would have the same effects - are the differences really due to multiple partners? If the study only looks at different cultures, then we don't know whether it might be something else that is the cause.
things like possibly increased rates of STDs and relationship destruction
I'm not sure what this has to do with polyamory. One could be polyamorous with two life long partners; on the other hand "monogamous" people can sleep around all over the place. I don't see any evidence that polyamorous relationships are more likely to break down (come to that, I don't see the connection to swinging, either).
Your faith in god is no different from faith that elephants exist? (Argument From We All Got Faith).
It is perfectly legal for anyone to screw a 16 year old girl, any way they want. However, if after they banged her every which way, they drew a picture of her naked and gave it to her, they can be done for distributing child pornography and put away for god knows how many years.
Note that a drawing is currently legal in the UK, however they are planning to criminalise them (see my other comment). But it would be illegal if they took a photo, which I fully agree is fucked up. In fact, she could be done for possessing a picture of her own body. The Government's own police agency has warned under-18s that they could be prosecuted for posing on a webcam. (Police Chief Jim Gamble - who incidentally headed the notorious Operation Ore also wants "extreme" adult porn to be illegal - says "It's no different in the virtual world". Er, yeah, except for the fact that watching 16 year olds would be legal if it was in the real world).
You're correct it's not illegal - and note that it's not even illegal in the EU, as that quote is referring to realistic faked child porn. See the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#United_Kingdom . Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon#Legal_issues_elsewhere has some info on the legal status of non-realistic child depictions.
They plan to change this in the UK, however, criminalising all sexual non-realistic images of under 18s:
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/28/2242228
http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/non-photographic-depictions.htm
A particular curiousity is that the age of consent is 16. So sex with a 16/17 year old is legal, but a drawing of the same act, even if entirely drawn from one's imagination, will soon be illegal.