(Seriously though - after searching through many videos, I've yet to find a single one that does have the option, other than one that someone posted above. "Most, if not all"? "All" is clearly not true, and it's hard to see justification for the "most", unless I'm being very unlucky in my search...)
Who wants to developer only for a hacked platform, with just a few million users - and where the number is very much a vague uncertain estimate?
(When there's a story about an Iphone virus, no doubt you or someone else will be saying it's irrelevant, because it only applies to jailbroken phones...)
Anything you can name, it's been done on the iPhone - and usually first.
3G? Copy/paste? Internet access? Mapping software? Multitasking? MMS? Video recording? Java?
The difference is that the PC isn't locked down - having more applications (if it's even true - source, please?) is less of a bonus if some categories of applications aren't available because the company doesn't allow them on the platform, or if a particular application can be blocked or removed.
I find it pretty funny that the pro-Apple crowd that use to crow on and on about how "having more applications is irrelevant so long as it does all I want" now quote the (alleged) claim of more applications as if the raw number is now the most important thing worth having. Which is it?
People have been paying for things on mobiles long before the original Iphone was even released. Just look at the ring tone craze, where people hand over money even for something as trivial as a short mp3 tune.
Palm and Windows Mobile (and indeed Android) are small players these days - how does the rest of the market compare?
Because we simply don't care? People here get so stressed about some of the most pedantic things. I use the WiFi outside my home once in a blue moon. It's just not that important since my data plan is unlimited. 3G is perfectly suitable for the occasional internet need while I'm at the doctors office, or sitting eating lunch and reading slashdot or some random news tidbit.
Standard Apple rule - if the Iphone has it, it's great (3G, unlimited dataplan). If not, it's "Why would I need that" or "Why care?" The great thing about this rule is that you can even change when new features are out - e.g., the Iphone had 3G years after other phones, before then it was "Why would I need that?"
but it's almost like there's a complete disconnect between the geeks and the typical user in here.
Yes, in that Apple phones are far more popular here than in the general public, judging by market share.
This whole Apple/Droid thing reminds me of the old Windows/Apple wars.
More like BeOS versus OS/2.
Every iPhone topic turns into how Apple is evil (+1 insightful, yeah baby), and how we should despise them (+1 underrated), or their the new 'Microsoft' (+1 fanboi),
Generally, anything pro-Apple is instant mod points, and any criticism usually gets modded down, unless you're careful or lucky.
The very folks saying we're mindless drones just want us to become mindless droids.
Oh right, because it's called a droid, this means people buying it are "droids".
Personally I Think Different by not buying Apple.
South Park is comedy, it's not actually based on reality. Their goth story was as much of a straw man as your argument against Droid users.
iPhone has more software than Android, hence more options.
Citation? And not just for Android, but other platforms too (e.g., Symbian)? And by that, I don't mean app-store counts, as other platforms aren't restricted to that closed model - I mean total amount of software.
And yes, the other commenter makes a good point - the type of applications is more important than the raw number. Consider one platform having applications in every area of functionality. Then consider a platform that has a higher number of overall applications, but misses out applications in some areas of functionality (in other words, the higher number is due to duplicating functionality). Which is better? The Iphone falls into that latter category - because we know there are areas that are missing, because Apple refuse those, and there's no other way to download them.
Because "bad" isn't limited to what's illegal, but is anything that someone doesn't like? (RTFS for examples.)
Because of the whole, you know, fair trial and innocent until proven guilty thing?
Because it shouldn't be up to individuals to apply justice - otherwise, shouldn't they in turn be subject to the same humiliation, for doing this to other people?
is that lawyers often defend people whom they know to be guilty to the bone
Citation? How does a lawyer know they're guilty - do they have access to evidence that the prosecution and jury do not?
Intentionally withholding evidence would be worrying. I suspect what you really mean is that lawyers defend people that they think are guilty. But so what? It means they are able to put making a rational argument above whatever their personal prejudices maybe - the latter often turn out to be wrong.
So the OP wasn't saying that lawyers shouldn't defend people accused of murder, just those that are clearly (known to the lawyer himself) guilty.
And how exactly do we judge this? After having the trial to see if someone's guilty, we now have to have a trial to see if the lawyer knew this person was guilty, even before the person's trial was over? And who represents the lawyer in this case...?
Internet access. Mapping software. Communication. Taking/showing photos and video. Playing music. Running useful utilities (there's more to life than spreadsheets). And *gasp* phone calls.
If all you want to use it for is playing hand held video games, then there are better - and more popular, incidentally - devices for that.
And come on - every time someone points out one of the many basic features that the Iphone lacks or lacked, we get no end of "Why would I want to do that?" So here we are, saying "Why would we want to run video games on a phone?" You only cling to this as being an important, because it's something that the Iphone can do. Next, you'll be telling me how fundamentally important you think multitouch is.
I agree that there's even less reason now for the Iphone to have anything special about it, but even originally:
That's not true. ONE reason for the iPhone's dominance - snip.
Dominance? There's no dominance judging by market share figures. And if we're talking about when the Iphone was first released, then the original Iphone model sold far less.
(I don't know if it's true that the Iphone had the fastest CPU - it's hard to tell with so many made up "firsts" - but whilst this would be useful for gamers, for people who are buying it primarily as a phone, communication and/or Internet device, it's not so important.)
Who says bitmaps need to resize? A rescaling GUI doesn't mean that everything has to scale uniformly, it just means using the extra space sensibly. Try resizing your browser window right now - does everything scale exactly the same? Of course not. Is it useful to be able to enlarge the window? Of course.
Bitmaps are generally a minor part of GUIs anyway. And if you're talking about games instead, that's the first place you should be learning to program resizeable displays.
(I program Windows btw, but it's always been a pet hate that for so long, Windows enforced developers into a pixel-fixed unresizable GUI design. But then I was programming with flexible layouts on the Amiga in the early '90s.)
Excellent. As it happens, I'm in Cambridge myself, so this saves me writing to you about the matter:) You have my vote.
(Are there any plans to make any statement about this amendment, e.g., for the Lib Dems to clarify the official party policy, or to distance themselves from that amendment? Unfortunately most of the media seem to be reporting this as being done by the "Liberal Democrats", and I fear many potential voters will mistakenly take this as official policy...)
On Windows XP at least, you can choose to set it to only notify you, and then it only installs when you tell it. (Control Panel / Automatic Updates.)
(I'm not sure what this article is about, seems to be just spreading FUD. I don't have to patch anything myself, as that's what the automatic updates are for. And other platforms have automatic updates too, anyway.)
(Though depressingly there are a lot of comments from people who simply don't understand basic politics, such as those saying he's lost their vote - since when did they vote for a Lord? - to people talking as if the Lib Dems now can't criticise what's been proposed as "their" amendment; in reality, it's not uncommon for Lords of the same party to propose amendments disagreeing with the Government, in fact, even in the Commons, there may be disagreement between individual MPs and their own party.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the DMCA and similar laws are about taking down the source. Whilst there are problems with this, to be fair, this isn't too unreasonable: it tackles the source rather than someone simply looking at the site, and it allows people to dispute the claim. It also means that ISPs and hosts don't have to worry about liability. (The worrying parts of the DMCA are surely the bits to do with criminalising things that can circumvent a copy protection method, no matter how trivial.)
But this proposal in the UK appears to be talking about blocking the sites. As in censorship - as in something the UK currently only do for (potential) child pr0n. As in the sort of thing that's causing an outrage in Australia, yet here we are now considering it for mere possible hosting of copyrighted files...
(Also see the post below about an email from the Lord who proposed this, where he references the Internet Watch Foundation, which is the UK organisation that provides the blocklist.)
Thanks, interesting - although it doesn't really tell us much. I'd like to see what the Lib Dem MPs say about their party policy on this matter, not handwave the issue over to what that Lord has to say. Do they support it, or not?
"Site blocking is not a new phenomenon, the most well-known being the recommended list of sites to block provided by the Internet Watch Foundation"
Ah yes - which blocks (potential) child pr0n. Leaving aside that they can't even get that right (remember Wikipedia?), extending censorship from child pr0n to copied mp3s (or even just linking to them) is absurd.
Even people criticising the IWF on slippery slope grounds could never have dreamed that it would be extended so far, for so petty things, so quickly!
It's an amendment proposed by a Lord. Does anyone have a reference that this is coming from Lib Dem party policy? The Lords can propose what they like, it doesn't have to be with their party politics.
If you're going to use this as an axe to grind, do it against the Lords proposing this, not Lib Dem MPs who work in a completely different House.
Note that this is happening in the House of Lords. Of course yes, as a Lib Dem voter I am horrified by this, but it's important to work out whether this amendment actually came from official Lib Dem party policy, or was an amendment put forward by Lib Dem and Tory Lords.
From the link, all it shows is an amendment proposed by a Lib Dem Lord. A Lord can propose what they like (this is both the advantage and disadvantage on the system - they're not tied to party policy).
Please don't throw away your vote for your MP for the House of Commons, based on what someone else is doing in a completely different House! Please write to your Lib Dem MP, let them know what you think, and hope ensure that this doesn't come Lib Dem policy (and preferably, get them to distance themselves from this amendment).
(Even in the House of Commons, sometimes you can have individual MPs proposing amendments that aren't party policy. I don't care whether you decide to vote based on your individual MP, or party policy, but deciding who you vote for based on the actions of other MPs is just throwing away your vote.)
Slashdot Mirror
I was disappointed to see they don't have it for this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6FUR_nhGX8
(Seriously though - after searching through many videos, I've yet to find a single one that does have the option, other than one that someone posted above. "Most, if not all"? "All" is clearly not true, and it's hard to see justification for the "most", unless I'm being very unlucky in my search...)
Back in the day, when IE 6 was released, it was easily the best browser around.
IE 6? I was happily using Opera at the time.
Who wants to developer only for a hacked platform, with just a few million users - and where the number is very much a vague uncertain estimate?
(When there's a story about an Iphone virus, no doubt you or someone else will be saying it's irrelevant, because it only applies to jailbroken phones...)
Anything you can name, it's been done on the iPhone - and usually first.
3G? Copy/paste? Internet access? Mapping software? Multitasking? MMS? Video recording? Java?
The difference is that the PC isn't locked down - having more applications (if it's even true - source, please?) is less of a bonus if some categories of applications aren't available because the company doesn't allow them on the platform, or if a particular application can be blocked or removed.
I find it pretty funny that the pro-Apple crowd that use to crow on and on about how "having more applications is irrelevant so long as it does all I want" now quote the (alleged) claim of more applications as if the raw number is now the most important thing worth having. Which is it?
People have been paying for things on mobiles long before the original Iphone was even released. Just look at the ring tone craze, where people hand over money even for something as trivial as a short mp3 tune.
Palm and Windows Mobile (and indeed Android) are small players these days - how does the rest of the market compare?
Because we simply don't care? People here get so stressed about some of the most pedantic things. I use the WiFi outside my home once in a blue moon. It's just not that important since my data plan is unlimited. 3G is perfectly suitable for the occasional internet need while I'm at the doctors office, or sitting eating lunch and reading slashdot or some random news tidbit.
Standard Apple rule - if the Iphone has it, it's great (3G, unlimited dataplan). If not, it's "Why would I need that" or "Why care?" The great thing about this rule is that you can even change when new features are out - e.g., the Iphone had 3G years after other phones, before then it was "Why would I need that?"
but it's almost like there's a complete disconnect between the geeks and the typical user in here.
Yes, in that Apple phones are far more popular here than in the general public, judging by market share.
This whole Apple/Droid thing reminds me of the old Windows/Apple wars.
More like BeOS versus OS/2.
Every iPhone topic turns into how Apple is evil (+1 insightful, yeah baby), and how we should despise them (+1 underrated), or their the new 'Microsoft' (+1 fanboi),
Generally, anything pro-Apple is instant mod points, and any criticism usually gets modded down, unless you're careful or lucky.
The very folks saying we're mindless drones just want us to become mindless droids.
Oh right, because it's called a droid, this means people buying it are "droids".
Personally I Think Different by not buying Apple.
South Park is comedy, it's not actually based on reality. Their goth story was as much of a straw man as your argument against Droid users.
iPhone has more software than Android, hence more options.
Citation? And not just for Android, but other platforms too (e.g., Symbian)? And by that, I don't mean app-store counts, as other platforms aren't restricted to that closed model - I mean total amount of software.
And yes, the other commenter makes a good point - the type of applications is more important than the raw number. Consider one platform having applications in every area of functionality. Then consider a platform that has a higher number of overall applications, but misses out applications in some areas of functionality (in other words, the higher number is due to duplicating functionality). Which is better? The Iphone falls into that latter category - because we know there are areas that are missing, because Apple refuse those, and there's no other way to download them.
Yes, and? Saying all the ways that the UK or wherever is bad too doesn't excuse this.
(For the UK, the hysteria primarily comes from the tabloids, although the Government are keen to take advantage if they want to pass a new law.)
Because "bad" isn't limited to what's illegal, but is anything that someone doesn't like? (RTFS for examples.)
Because of the whole, you know, fair trial and innocent until proven guilty thing?
Because it shouldn't be up to individuals to apply justice - otherwise, shouldn't they in turn be subject to the same humiliation, for doing this to other people?
is that lawyers often defend people whom they know to be guilty to the bone
Citation? How does a lawyer know they're guilty - do they have access to evidence that the prosecution and jury do not?
Intentionally withholding evidence would be worrying. I suspect what you really mean is that lawyers defend people that they think are guilty. But so what? It means they are able to put making a rational argument above whatever their personal prejudices maybe - the latter often turn out to be wrong.
So the OP wasn't saying that lawyers shouldn't defend people accused of murder, just those that are clearly (known to the lawyer himself) guilty.
And how exactly do we judge this? After having the trial to see if someone's guilty, we now have to have a trial to see if the lawyer knew this person was guilty, even before the person's trial was over? And who represents the lawyer in this case...?
Internet access. Mapping software. Communication. Taking/showing photos and video. Playing music. Running useful utilities (there's more to life than spreadsheets). And *gasp* phone calls.
If all you want to use it for is playing hand held video games, then there are better - and more popular, incidentally - devices for that.
And come on - every time someone points out one of the many basic features that the Iphone lacks or lacked, we get no end of "Why would I want to do that?" So here we are, saying "Why would we want to run video games on a phone?" You only cling to this as being an important, because it's something that the Iphone can do. Next, you'll be telling me how fundamentally important you think multitouch is.
you know that the platform is popular.
Non sequitur.
I know a platform is popular, by looking at the sales figures and market share. In the mobile market, that's companies like Nokia, not Apple.
That's not what the buyers are saying with their money since they are still buying more iPhones than Android phones.
And there are far more buyers buying Nokia, along with Motorola, Samsung, LG, and even RIM, high above Apple or Google.
You need to expand your sampling of "users" to beyond the slashdot neckbeards.
Yes, exactly. I wish people would do that, instead of pretending it's just Apple versus Google.
I agree that there's even less reason now for the Iphone to have anything special about it, but even originally:
That's not true. ONE reason for the iPhone's dominance - snip.
Dominance? There's no dominance judging by market share figures. And if we're talking about when the Iphone was first released, then the original Iphone model sold far less.
(I don't know if it's true that the Iphone had the fastest CPU - it's hard to tell with so many made up "firsts" - but whilst this would be useful for gamers, for people who are buying it primarily as a phone, communication and/or Internet device, it's not so important.)
Who says bitmaps need to resize? A rescaling GUI doesn't mean that everything has to scale uniformly, it just means using the extra space sensibly. Try resizing your browser window right now - does everything scale exactly the same? Of course not. Is it useful to be able to enlarge the window? Of course.
Bitmaps are generally a minor part of GUIs anyway. And if you're talking about games instead, that's the first place you should be learning to program resizeable displays.
Wow, 2006! I think that proves his point ;)
(I program Windows btw, but it's always been a pet hate that for so long, Windows enforced developers into a pixel-fixed unresizable GUI design. But then I was programming with flexible layouts on the Amiga in the early '90s.)
Excellent. As it happens, I'm in Cambridge myself, so this saves me writing to you about the matter :) You have my vote.
(Are there any plans to make any statement about this amendment, e.g., for the Lib Dems to clarify the official party policy, or to distance themselves from that amendment? Unfortunately most of the media seem to be reporting this as being done by the "Liberal Democrats", and I fear many potential voters will mistakenly take this as official policy...)
On Windows XP at least, you can choose to set it to only notify you, and then it only installs when you tell it. (Control Panel / Automatic Updates.)
(I'm not sure what this article is about, seems to be just spreading FUD. I don't have to patch anything myself, as that's what the automatic updates are for. And other platforms have automatic updates too, anyway.)
You're stealing my time, that I wasted reading your comment...
Also this comment makes some good points: http://www.libdemvoice.org/digital-economy-bill-web-blocking-lib-dems-18165.html#comment-109185
(Though depressingly there are a lot of comments from people who simply don't understand basic politics, such as those saying he's lost their vote - since when did they vote for a Lord? - to people talking as if the Lib Dems now can't criticise what's been proposed as "their" amendment; in reality, it's not uncommon for Lords of the same party to propose amendments disagreeing with the Government, in fact, even in the Commons, there may be disagreement between individual MPs and their own party.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the DMCA and similar laws are about taking down the source. Whilst there are problems with this, to be fair, this isn't too unreasonable: it tackles the source rather than someone simply looking at the site, and it allows people to dispute the claim. It also means that ISPs and hosts don't have to worry about liability. (The worrying parts of the DMCA are surely the bits to do with criminalising things that can circumvent a copy protection method, no matter how trivial.)
But this proposal in the UK appears to be talking about blocking the sites. As in censorship - as in something the UK currently only do for (potential) child pr0n. As in the sort of thing that's causing an outrage in Australia, yet here we are now considering it for mere possible hosting of copyrighted files...
(Also see the post below about an email from the Lord who proposed this, where he references the Internet Watch Foundation, which is the UK organisation that provides the blocklist.)
Thanks, interesting - although it doesn't really tell us much. I'd like to see what the Lib Dem MPs say about their party policy on this matter, not handwave the issue over to what that Lord has to say. Do they support it, or not?
"Site blocking is not a new phenomenon, the most well-known being the recommended list of sites to block provided by the Internet Watch Foundation"
Ah yes - which blocks (potential) child pr0n. Leaving aside that they can't even get that right (remember Wikipedia?), extending censorship from child pr0n to copied mp3s (or even just linking to them) is absurd.
Even people criticising the IWF on slippery slope grounds could never have dreamed that it would be extended so far, for so petty things, so quickly!
It's an amendment proposed by a Lord. Does anyone have a reference that this is coming from Lib Dem party policy? The Lords can propose what they like, it doesn't have to be with their party politics.
If you're going to use this as an axe to grind, do it against the Lords proposing this, not Lib Dem MPs who work in a completely different House.
Note that this is happening in the House of Lords. Of course yes, as a Lib Dem voter I am horrified by this, but it's important to work out whether this amendment actually came from official Lib Dem party policy, or was an amendment put forward by Lib Dem and Tory Lords.
From the link, all it shows is an amendment proposed by a Lib Dem Lord. A Lord can propose what they like (this is both the advantage and disadvantage on the system - they're not tied to party policy).
Please don't throw away your vote for your MP for the House of Commons, based on what someone else is doing in a completely different House! Please write to your Lib Dem MP, let them know what you think, and hope ensure that this doesn't come Lib Dem policy (and preferably, get them to distance themselves from this amendment).
(Even in the House of Commons, sometimes you can have individual MPs proposing amendments that aren't party policy. I don't care whether you decide to vote based on your individual MP, or party policy, but deciding who you vote for based on the actions of other MPs is just throwing away your vote.)
OOI, in what music would you say has art?