The reason the iPhone will work is the exact same reason the iPod did. Its nothing to do with having a million features and supporting every standard there is.
The iPhone isn't for geeks (though im sure most geeks will love it). Its for my mum, and my brother and my sister and aunt etc. Its going be simple and its going to work. Why would apple create some complex super phone for the small geek market when it can create a simple but brilliant phone for the masses? I love having lots of features, its why I have the N95 phone, but all I use it for is Voice, Text, Camera and Wi-fi.
This difference is that, unlike with the ipod, you can get simple-but-good-enough phones for a fraction of the price.
With the ipod, despite it's simplicity, it had extra storage space which people did want, and which justified the higher price over the cheaper players.
Also, since at least the 9.0 release tabs have been broken. I had to stop using it after 9.0 because switching between tabs was incredibly laggy. With more than a couple tabs open, there would be a very noticeable pause switching between them. I'd say it was up to 5 seconds or more on some occasions.
Working fine for me though... (not saying your experience is wrong of course, but I don't think this is the normal behaviour).
Opera used to have an advertisement area on the right side of the toolbar, now a blank area. All of the control buttons are still over on the left side. I wonder when they will fix that.
There's no blank area at all on my Opera, and it was set up that way when I installed it (v9.02). If you want to customise an existing version, try switching off the Main Bar (which is the one which leaves the blank space), and move buttons you want into the Address Bar, that way you have a row of buttons, with the remaining space taken up by the URL field. (Annoying that you can't just rearrange the address bar onto the same row as the main bar, though.)
I favor mentioning a browser that respects my software freedom over those that don't (Opera, MSIE).
Yeah, this is why Mac OS X is so unpopular on Slashdot!
(I don't know why Opera seems so disliked here despite the fact that alternative, non-Microsoft products are normally loved, when Opera was the first decent alternative to IE to fill the gap after Netscape died. Not being open source is the reason often given, but that doesn't make sense, given the popularity OS X has compared with Linux - obviously not being open source isn't an issue.)
Possibly we don't have the same laws because the latter examples don't seem to exist - after all, it can easily be simulated with consenting adult actors instead.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that there shouldn't be any distinction between them, when it involves non-consenting victims.
It may also become a haven for other distasteful images that, paradoxically, no one really wants to see but that aren't necesarily illegal.
If no one wants to see them, it isn't a paradox that they aren't illegal, since there is no need to make it illegal.
But what is more usually the case is that some (or even most) people find them distasteful, whilst others wish to see them - the former isn't an argument for criminalising the latter group of people.
Given that different countries have different laws on obscenity, this site could be useful. Similarly for countries like the UK planning to put people in prison for _possession_ of "distasteful" images, this site could theoretically be useful for hosting material (though they'd still be at risk when they visit the site).
Note that, according to your link, that seems to cover things which aren't real photos (e.g., manipulated images). I don't see that a real photo of someone who looks too young would fall under this.
The issue isn't necessarily the rating, so much as the impact of the rating. Which is, to say, that the rating has automatically triggered a ban in the UK, will probalby trigger one throughout the EU, and effectively prevents the game from coming to US shelves by the policies of most US retailers.
The ban in the UK is due to the BBFC's decision, and I don't see would have been influenced by the ESRB. Also the BBFC's decision does not affect other countries in the EU (many of which, AIUI, tend to be less restrictive than the UK when it comes to adult censorship).
Except that isn't alone the definition - as I understand it, this was a term introduced by the OSI, and not one which preexisted.
Whether they have a legal right to enforce it depends on trademark law, but I don't think it's right for companies to use false or misleading advertising, by trying to pretend a term applies to their software, when it doesn't.
The UK Government realised that censoring "extreme" porn can no longer work via the BBFC, because people visit websites in other countries (e.g., the US, those that actually have this concept known as freedom of speech - anywhere other than places like Iran, basically).
Moreover, Einstein claimed the speed of light is a constant, and as IBM's experiments earlier this year have proven, the speed of light is actually a variable.
They have? Link? Showing that Einstein was wrong would be big news.
By scientific consensus, we believed the Earth was flat, until we were told it wasn't.
No we didn't. There was never a scientific consensus or theory that stated the world was flat. Even in ancient times, we knew the Earth was round - the idea that people believed the world was flat is a common myth.
How much was the first high-end iPod? $499, right? Now, today the most expensive fifth-generation model is down to $349, while the cheapest models are $79 (shuffle) and $149 (nano).
Translation: don't assume that there's only going to be one model and one price point forever.
Yes but phones have already dropped through the price barrier. When the iPod was released, there wasn't competition from perfectly good mp3 players at a fraction of the price. But for phones we're already at the stage where we've had several generations, drops in price, and even dirt cheap phones do web browsing and mp3 playing.
Well, I haven't heard of any theory on how the universe was created that doesn't end up with something that just existed magically in the beginning.
There's a difference between "we don't know how it happened" and believing "it happened by magic". No theory of the universe says anything happened by magic - rather, it's that we don't have a theory that explains everything yet.
In this context, it's the difference between not knowing how a computer works, and believing it runs by magic.
Interesting examples. As I say, it's not clear to me why "planet" should be a special restricted category, whilst "moon" isn't.
Round man-made satellites could orbit the sun.
Well I think a sensible restriction is any natural satellite - again, just as moon means any natural satellite of a planet.
Slight stretch - If a moon breaks out of planetary orbit or the planet is destroyed, does the moon become a planet since it orbits the sun?
I think it's reasonable and sensible to say that the moon becomes a planet in these cases. Just as some of the planets' moons may have been captured planets/asteroids, but we still include them as being moons now.
Yeah, I seem to remember that hardcore porn was only recently legalised (2000?) in the UK - but even before then, I think it was only publication/distribution that was illegal, whilst the new "extreme porn" law targets simple possession (even of your own private home-made photos...)
Slashdot Mirror
The reason the iPhone will work is the exact same reason the iPod did. Its nothing to do with having a million features and supporting every standard there is.
The iPhone isn't for geeks (though im sure most geeks will love it). Its for my mum, and my brother and my sister and aunt etc. Its going be simple and its going to work. Why would apple create some complex super phone for the small geek market when it can create a simple but brilliant phone for the masses? I love having lots of features, its why I have the N95 phone, but all I use it for is Voice, Text, Camera and Wi-fi.
This difference is that, unlike with the ipod, you can get simple-but-good-enough phones for a fraction of the price.
With the ipod, despite it's simplicity, it had extra storage space which people did want, and which justified the higher price over the cheaper players.
Also, since at least the 9.0 release tabs have been broken. I had to stop using it after 9.0 because switching between tabs was incredibly laggy. With more than a couple tabs open, there would be a very noticeable pause switching between them. I'd say it was up to 5 seconds or more on some occasions.
Working fine for me though... (not saying your experience is wrong of course, but I don't think this is the normal behaviour).
Opera used to have an advertisement area on the right side of the toolbar, now a blank area. All of the control buttons are still over on the left side. I wonder when they will fix that.
There's no blank area at all on my Opera, and it was set up that way when I installed it (v9.02). If you want to customise an existing version, try switching off the Main Bar (which is the one which leaves the blank space), and move buttons you want into the Address Bar, that way you have a row of buttons, with the remaining space taken up by the URL field. (Annoying that you can't just rearrange the address bar onto the same row as the main bar, though.)
I favor mentioning a browser that respects my software freedom over those that don't (Opera, MSIE).
Yeah, this is why Mac OS X is so unpopular on Slashdot!
(I don't know why Opera seems so disliked here despite the fact that alternative, non-Microsoft products are normally loved, when Opera was the first decent alternative to IE to fill the gap after Netscape died. Not being open source is the reason often given, but that doesn't make sense, given the popularity OS X has compared with Linux - obviously not being open source isn't an issue.)
But surely giving someone a software package (as opposed to copying it) isn't copyright infringement?
Possibly we don't have the same laws because the latter examples don't seem to exist - after all, it can easily be simulated with consenting adult actors instead.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that there shouldn't be any distinction between them, when it involves non-consenting victims.
It may also become a haven for other distasteful images that, paradoxically, no one really wants to see but that aren't necesarily illegal.
If no one wants to see them, it isn't a paradox that they aren't illegal, since there is no need to make it illegal.
But what is more usually the case is that some (or even most) people find them distasteful, whilst others wish to see them - the former isn't an argument for criminalising the latter group of people.
Given that different countries have different laws on obscenity, this site could be useful. Similarly for countries like the UK planning to put people in prison for _possession_ of "distasteful" images, this site could theoretically be useful for hosting material (though they'd still be at risk when they visit the site).
In the UK, it's not
Note that, according to your link, that seems to cover things which aren't real photos (e.g., manipulated images). I don't see that a real photo of someone who looks too young would fall under this.
As others have said, the age limit is 18 in the UK for photos (even if you don't distribute them). This was changed in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Guess what? Nobody banned the game.
Well they did in the UK.
The issue isn't necessarily the rating, so much as the impact of the rating. Which is, to say, that the rating has automatically triggered a ban in the UK, will probalby trigger one throughout the EU, and effectively prevents the game from coming to US shelves by the policies of most US retailers.
The ban in the UK is due to the BBFC's decision, and I don't see would have been influenced by the ESRB. Also the BBFC's decision does not affect other countries in the EU (many of which, AIUI, tend to be less restrictive than the UK when it comes to adult censorship).
Can I sell my new open graphics library as "OpenGL" even if it has nothing to do with the other OpenGL?
Can I market Apple computers, because I sell computers that come in the shape of Apples?
open source = you can see the source
Except that isn't alone the definition - as I understand it, this was a term introduced by the OSI, and not one which preexisted.
Whether they have a legal right to enforce it depends on trademark law, but I don't think it's right for companies to use false or misleading advertising, by trying to pretend a term applies to their software, when it doesn't.
The real surprise would be when the female night elf character turns out to be played by an Elf.
Do you get your 'news' from the Daily Mail per chance?
Maybe we should ban the Daily Mail...
UK person here too -
We should ban computer games because it might make hoodies more anti-social than they already are?
If they spent their time indoors playing computer games rather than menacing the public, the world would be a better place!
The thing about freedom of expression is that it applies even to things you disagree with, or find offensive to look at.
If you don't like it, don't look at it (or don't play the computer game, in this case).
Let's hope they don't realise!
The UK Government realised that censoring "extreme" porn can no longer work via the BBFC, because people visit websites in other countries (e.g., the US, those that actually have this concept known as freedom of speech - anywhere other than places like Iran, basically).
So they are now planning to criminalise _possession_. That's right, three years in prison for possessing a naughty image, even if it involves consenting adults or is simulated.
As soon as they realise about bittorrent, they'll be pushing for it to be a criminal offence to possession violent computer games.
You think people wouldn't pay that extra month's cost to gain an unimaginable amount of functionality in web browsing alone?
No, I just run Opera Mini for free, which runs on any old dirt cheap Java phone.
Moreover, Einstein claimed the speed of light is a constant, and as IBM's experiments earlier this year have proven, the speed of light is actually a variable.
They have? Link? Showing that Einstein was wrong would be big news.
By scientific consensus, we believed the Earth was flat, until we were told it wasn't.
No we didn't. There was never a scientific consensus or theory that stated the world was flat. Even in ancient times, we knew the Earth was round - the idea that people believed the world was flat is a common myth.
How much was the first high-end iPod? $499, right? Now, today the most expensive fifth-generation model is down to $349, while the cheapest models are $79 (shuffle) and $149 (nano).
Translation: don't assume that there's only going to be one model and one price point forever.
Yes but phones have already dropped through the price barrier. When the iPod was released, there wasn't competition from perfectly good mp3 players at a fraction of the price. But for phones we're already at the stage where we've had several generations, drops in price, and even dirt cheap phones do web browsing and mp3 playing.
Well, I haven't heard of any theory on how the universe was created that doesn't end up with something that just existed magically in the beginning.
There's a difference between "we don't know how it happened" and believing "it happened by magic". No theory of the universe says anything happened by magic - rather, it's that we don't have a theory that explains everything yet.
In this context, it's the difference between not knowing how a computer works, and believing it runs by magic.
Interesting examples. As I say, it's not clear to me why "planet" should be a special restricted category, whilst "moon" isn't.
Round man-made satellites could orbit the sun.
Well I think a sensible restriction is any natural satellite - again, just as moon means any natural satellite of a planet.
Slight stretch - If a moon breaks out of planetary orbit or the planet is destroyed, does the moon become a planet since it orbits the sun?
I think it's reasonable and sensible to say that the moon becomes a planet in these cases. Just as some of the planets' moons may have been captured planets/asteroids, but we still include them as being moons now.
Of course it can, long since proved (no I'm not going to do your research for you)
*yawn*
No it can't. Long since proved (no I'm not going to do your research for you).
And if you can't be bothered to research it, then no one's going to be bothered to believe your claims that pictures make people murder.
Yeah, I seem to remember that hardcore porn was only recently legalised (2000?) in the UK - but even before then, I think it was only publication/distribution that was illegal, whilst the new "extreme porn" law targets simple possession (even of your own private home-made photos...)